Absolutely. My Pentax zeal stops shy of bigotry.

A cursory search of the net pulled up some interesting - uhm - inspiration.

The juxtaposition of the girl and the eggs is most unfortunate.

Greenpeace protest about pair trawling outside DEFRA (UK).
Geek info
Manufacturer |Canon
Model |Canon DIGITAL IXUS v3
Date and Time |2004:06:07 11:14:22
Exposure Time |1/319 sec.
Aperture |f/3.2
Focal Length |6.7 mm

Sometimes it's like the camera actually knows what exposure to use, isn't it?

Do you always hold your camera by the strap? I don't. I hold it by the lens, the left side of the body, the right side of the body, by the little screw hole in the base.

Cameras are perfectly capable of supporting their weight through the lens mount. Consider how you attach a camera with a big lens to a tripod.

Not paranoid, no. A little over-cautious, maybe.

I have the 200, too. I carry a K10D with battery grip and 50-200 attached. Three other lenses plus a 2x adapter, a set of extension tubes, an IR flash trigger and various cables and small bits.

That leaves the top compartment free for whatever extra I need on that trip.

I frequently wear it on my back on a motorbike. It's not uncomfortable.

I think it's a great bag.

NW Scotland seems to have been popular this year. We had perfect weather all week.
















More info on the above including captions and similar shots can be found in the link in my sig.

Some of the great photographers mentioned didn't have the choice as their work predates good colour technology. Although that's not really the point.

I'm curious about the psychology behind the affection held by some people for mono.

Is it just a fondness for a bygone age? Or is it like a good striptease? You're drawn in by what you can't see more than what you can see.

It is obvious that George (and Lilly and probably others) and I are looking for different things from photographs. I'm not normally looking for pictures with a message, I'm looking for beauty; something to raise my spirits. I want pictures for my wall; to liven up a room.

The great painters used rich colours.

The only reason mono ever appeared as a form was due to the early technical limitations. I don't think mono would be more than an arty curiosity if the original process had produced colour reproduction.

No one watches mono television any more.

You can't use mono for a landscape or a sunset or a flower. Beauty needs colour.

Mono is used for period urban slums, mining towns, cityscapes and depression because that's what people used to photograph before colour was available. We're used to it. No one photographed landscapes in mono - or if they did, the pictures vanished without trace because they didn't work.

I'm convinced the fondness for mono for some types of subject is purely down to years of exposure setting a mental image and expectation.

As for "good B&W photography is very difficult" (George). Well, of course it is. So is cycling on one wheel or making good music with a drum.

Sure it is. Drab and depressing, generally.

It is very rare indeed for a mono picture to get anything more than a quick glance from me.

It's a bit like listening to good music with your fingers in your ears. You can still hear it but all the richness is lost.

IMHO, a good photo is never improved by removing the colour but a dull one may be made less so.

I can tolerate poor music longer with my fingers in my ears.

I have never understood the attraction.