The only time I have used MF is when using the fish-eye lens, when there is no other option. However, even with the fish-eye, the image snaps in and out of focus on the screen very acutely.

I think this will be very much dependent upon individuals' eyesight though. I have an advantage here in that I am quite short-sighted, so looking at things close up is never a problem. I should image for those who are long-sighted it would be very different and some sort of magnification would be needed.

There are screen loupes available, would that help?

I found it a bit tiresome after a while, but would have been much happier if the required image size had been the same as EPZ (1000 pixels) rather than 900 pixels. By the time I've made a full size image, a 1000 pixel one for EPZ and an 800 pixel one for a forum, I'm getting bored.....

Of course this is also because I resize all images to the correct size for a destination, wherever possible.

I think the conclusion was reached before the experiment was started. Photoshop is the single most powerful industry-wide imaging tool in existence, and the limits are those of the user.

Nobody has proved anything here because the original has not been available and the alternative programs have not been available to one user.

Even if the original image was available, if several people using different programs did their best with it and they were all compared, it would say more about the skills of the individuals than the programs themselves.

It's a similar misunderstanding to the "What a great photo, you must have a very good camera" that we have probably all heard at least once.

Actually what I was trying to do was to make v2 look more like v1, using Photoshop CS5. I think given the original it could be made to look that way quite easily.

What this suggests is that the difference between the two images has much less to do with using a different program, but much more to do with how the photographer interprets the image.

I don't believe that the original premise was proved by the first two images produced, rather the opposite possibly.

Now I am puzzled. You say at the start of this thread that the camera just shuts down, and then say it's working fine, although you don't seem to have found a battery solution.

Is there still a problem or not?

I thought I'd have a go at working on No 2, not too easy as there's such a blue cast, so not a good place to start from, but this is what I did:

I'm not so sure about that. Surely, it would be possible to make both images look the same whatever the processing software was, provided of course that we were skilled enough in that particular software?

Depending on the length of exposure I wouldn't call that flare, it looks more like speading light pollution. Because the exposure is presumably quite long, the small variation in brightness in those areas may have been exagerated until it becomes an overwhelming smear.

The crossed lines look like they might be flare from a point light source. I would check that the lens is scrupulously clean. After all, smears on our glasses can so easily cause flare and camera lenses are no different in this respect.

Lovely images of the children, maybe a darker blanket would have been better. The one you have used is very bright and a bit distracting.

I'll move it to Classified Ads, where it can be seen as a Want Ad for some Pentax stuff - all ads need to be Pentax related.

The problem you may have is that a Pentax User may have Pentax adapters to sell, or swap, but it's less likely that they will want other marques of the same thing in return. Not impossible if someone is a collector, but you may be better off buying and selling using eBay.