Same here. Life changes, horizons have to shrink, stick to what is possible and be grateful for what you do have.

It's one reason why I've turned to macro in recent years. To a ladybird, my gardens are absolutely enornous, so looking at things through a ladybird's eyes means there's a lot to explore without even leaving home .

Let me know If you ever do manage to head my way, it would be nice to put a face to a forum name.

Steve

I hope you get a lot of pleasure from the lens - and even more from the knowledge that you are helping to keep a photographic shop on my high street .

Steve

And now it's gone! If its new home is with a forum member, thank you for helping to keep my local photographic shop in business .

Steve

Wessex Photo is selling a used, 'Excellent' condition Pentax HD 70-210mm f4 link. Price £519, which is cheaper than MPB. If I was into full frame I'd be having a look at it. But I'm not so I'm not. It's my local photographic shop, though, so thought I'd support them and perhaps you by flagging it up on the forum.

Steve

That is exactly what I heard from a semi-pro wildlife photographer years, which convinced me that 300mm f4 was the way to go. He had used f2.8 primes and monster zooms with film but had changed to 300mm f4 prime plus a TC for digital and his back and aching limbs were grateful for it. I'm sure there is a place for big and heavy lenses but it's a much smaller place than it used to be - particularly given the small market share that Pentax now has.

Steve

And now there's a face in the second one, too. I'm sure it wasn't there when I posted my first comment. They're coming for you, Spad, coming for you...

Steve

There's a face in that first one. A spooky face on a spooky head. It's looking for you, Spad, looking for you ... Beware!!!

Stunning results from a night out, though .

Steve

And I'm going for No. 2, too. The composition seems more balanced than No. 1 while No. 3 seems a bit washed out for my liking.

And I admire your commitment to getting the shot by going out again the next day - and your luck in getting the same conditions .

Steve

Yes, please post a photo or two with your settings, it's very difficult to provide advice blind. And I agree with what Chrism8 and Jonathan-Mac say re manual exposure etc.. Find what works best for you and stick to it, don't let the camera choose.

I once photographed a lot of watercolours for a friend (unmounted, not behind glass). The ideal lighting is definitely even, natural light, the same for every photo. Different lights (bright sun at midday, cloudy, shadow etc.) have different colour spectra which affects what appears in the final JPG. If you aren't doing it already, try shooting RAW (PEF or DNG) rather than JPG for a few photos so you can adjust colour temperature in Photoshop, then once you have found what works best for you set that colour temperature in camera settings for subsequent photos in the same light (it will affect JPGs only, not RAW files).

Even after tinkering with lighting and colour temperature, getting a perfect colour match to the watercolours was impossible. That was because the sensor (any sensor, any camera) cannot cover the full range of colours that can be produced by paint (or in nature). Then there is the question of how well the monitor used to view the photos can cover the full range of colours that the camera can actually produce. Assuming both your camera and monitor are using the sRGB colour space, some of what you are seeing might be because "sRGB excludes the range of highly saturated colours" (a quote from link ).

In the end, like much in life it's a compromise .

Steve

I'm not offended at all. Process as much as you like or don't process at all, I don't care. There are pictures that are good and pictures that are not good (in my opinion, others might think differently). And I think this is a very good picture.

As far as processing is concerned, all I ask is that people are honest about what they have done, particularly if they have done a lot of processing. You have been honest about it, thank you.

Steve