Very cool shot, and especially considering it was shot through perspex. I love the eye of this beastie.

Regards

Gosh. Wow.

Flickr might be a better bet - there must be hundreds, if not thousands of baby bump shots on there.

Have you tried putting 'baby bump' into the search box on Flickr or Google images...?

Regards

If it is of any interest, I have accumulated 3 lenses which go out to 300mm. My first was the sigma 70-300 (the first lens I bought in fact after buying a K10d + kit lens), then I upgraded some time later to a DA*300mm, which is probably my 'favourite' lens; although I also like the flexibility of the zoom so have now obtained a sigma 100-300/f4 as well and have the 70-300 as almost a 'sacrificial' lens, or when I want to travel especially 'light'. Of course the quality of any picture is a combination of a number of things, some environmental (light/shade etc.) and some down to the operator (selection of exposure parameters, composition, steadiness of hand etc.) but on the whole the DA* is a stellar performer, the 100-300 comes a very close second - even at 300mm, and whilst the70-300 is a clear third I wouldn't say it was poor - for the money (and it is several hundred pounds cheaper than either of the other two(:!) I would say quite the opposite; and of course it is a lot smaller and lighter than either the DA* or the more expensive sigma, and has a useful macro function. whilst undoubtedly softer than the other two it is still very usable and when I look back at some of the shots I took with it even at 300mm the sharpness normally seems fair enough (maybe it's my eyes...:shock

Regards

Gosh it's a tricky one. The avocet shot in the gallery looks pretty good, although some of the shots on your flickr page (some nice shots in there BTW) look more grainy (were they shot at high ISO?). Do you shoot RAW? RAW files have not had sharpening applied in camera and have to be sharpened in PP - you mention that you have done this but you could experiment with maybe trying more and seeing what the effect is. For myself I usually apply a degree of sharpening to the RAW file in Adobe Camera Raw and then if I feel I need to I apply some further in PSE using the Unsharp Mask function.

it might be worth testing to see that the focus is spot-on using a focus chart or similar. I have never done this myself but I am sure someone else on the forum (or on the web somewhere) might be able to assist - in fact if you do a search on the forum here you might find some previous posts on that topic.

I believe the K-m has built-in shake reduction? I assume that you have that on if shooting hand-held and off if using a tripod. I know that the instructions are usually to have it switched off when shooting from a tripod although again I don't know the extent to which there is a significant effect if it is left on...

Does anyone else have any ideas?

Regards

Hello Colin. Are you getting soft shots just at one focal length or through the whole focal range? I have a 70-300 and it is noticeably sharper at shorter lengths and especially once you can use an aperture around f8 to f11. At 300mm and f5.6 it is noticeably less sharp but still a reasonable performer. If you have any example images you could post that might help people with 'diagnosis'....?

Regards

Hello and welcome. I have to echo Tim - your portfolio has some truly cracking pictures in it. Aspirational in fact.

Regards

Nice shot! - and there's a couple of other beauts on your flickr too. The bokeh really draws your attention to the ants, and having seen them before I know what you mean about their speed as they skitter about. There used to be a butterfly house near me but now it's closed... (another photo op bites the dust...)

Regards

I rather like the Square, and think you've done a good job with the mono conversion. It has a gritty eastern European quality to my mind. The Pharmacy and the Station are amazing insofar as I would never have had a clue that they were a Pharmacy or a Station (:!. It is fascinating to see other places in this way. Good set.

Regards