Yes indeed, I've removed it for you now, although a little late I'm afraid.

This is usually done to make a pictorial effect, an aesthetic choice, rather than a technical choice.

It depends upon the image. Sometimes a perfectly exposed, totally sharp image is required, such as a record shot of a church interior or an Adams-style landscape. In this case technique and maximum quality are paramount. This does not stop the image from being an exciting one, and indeed a large traditional black and white print could be breathtakingly beautiful in its own right.

The only caveat being that we should beware saying content over technical quality wins if that's a cover for sloppy working, otherwise it's probably quite correct that content will win. We know this because a badly focused, pale family snap of Great Anty Annie with the Eiffel Tower growing out of her head can have more value than our latest wonderful Photoshop Extravaganza. Obviously that's an extreme example.

But it's still down to context and I could see Taschen producing a very nice sellable book called "1000 Terrible Family Snaps" and it actually being quite interesting.

In photography we have always been dependent on post processing to get the best out of an image.

In the days of black and white, enlargers sold in their thousands and home darkrooms were quite commonplace. So much so that as far back as the 1910s some local councils considered introducing water taxes on home darkrooms.

I had my own darkroom from about 1969 to about 1998, when it finally gave way to digital imaging. Now I do in Photoshop what I did in the darkroom, it all amounts to the same thing.

This is my current image on EPZ, a gritty portrait of Melissa. I lit her so that she would be veiled in shadows and then decided to leave in the natural grittiness of the skin texture. This is a product of the severe lighting rather than any defect in Melissa!

It's just that I'm increasingly declining to remove and gloss things over in images, leaving them more in their raw state as found. We would have little choice on film, but with digital images we could go either way.

What are your thoughts?

That's a strange verdict in the sense that the 20-35mm was a film camera lens and the 16-45mm was much later and quite disconnected in any timeline.

The square clip on hood for the 50mm lens works just fine. Unfortunately, the Pentax ones are quite expensive.

If you read further down it does say suitable for all makes of DSLR.

So it was, but it's now been moved.

To be fair Miles, you used third party inks in the Epson that clogged, but Canon inks in the Canon that didn't. The point I'm making is that the third party inks you have started using now may or may not clog your Canon in due course. It will be interesting to see if it does make a difference long term.

Canon make very good printers, but so do Epson and many people use both perfectly satisfactorily.