Can you tell me exactly where that is please ... please!! I need to eradicate every last speck and banish it from my life for ever !!!.

I've been picking up since coming to Pentax that the K7 has been a bit unloved amongst the range - apart from those of us who still use one of course! But it holds its reputation as one of the most reliable (very few common faults) and very strong, a proper workhorse. Steve, that's right, I think they're actually rated to 100,000 - maybe the K5 has even added to that?

I was hoping no-one would spot that Alan, but I guess it just needs some more work - however I'm especially pleased that you didn't find any significant colour noise and that the shadow detail is all intact!

Welcome Bugs - when you ask about stock library requirements, are you talking about the photo content (eg how to shoot good photos that will be accepted and used by libraries), or are you asking about the technical side of the files they require (eg fomats, image dimensions, resolutions etc?)

I have the A28 f2.8 ... does anyone know if the optics are the same as the older one?

Its a new direction its funny you mention quality though - actually, I think part of the appeal to me is that the effects have completely wiped out any technical defects - there's no noise, moire, the smoothness and colours all great! It seems as if the final result doesn't actually show the photo at all - its as if the programme has completely started from scratch and created entirely new textures and shapes, just using the base photos as a guide ... and it is very perfect in doing that



Me too ! Its certainly made a big improvement on my complexion, much better than all the noise reduction I've ever tried



No, not at all, its only just starting


You're right, of course, there are better effects I should have tried - does anyone know of software that can do a clingfilm look ? or tin-foil? brown paper bag look? christmas wrapping?

They are entirely apt though - the presentation here is for some fun, but I'm using them in an animated video title sequence - there are 2 photo frames on screen moving around independently, and the shots sort of morph and transition from the straight to the 'effects' with an animated skaking fade transition between them, so when each new effect emerges from behind the previous one it comes as a surprise. The shots are working really well for this purpose.

Thanks to everyone so far for having a look and a laugh

I'm not usually into filter effects at all, usually aiming for the true-to-life where possible, but I was exploring some options in Sagelight 4.0, and the results had such an impact that I really want to share them ...

I am making a video project of a visit to Bocketts Childrens Farm recently, with Ms McG and one little McG - I made different versions of a series of shots, with the intention of using them in the video sort of merging and morphing into each other. I know this sort of stuff is probably cliched and hackneyed, but I was genuinely struck by the high quality and sheer impact of the effects. You get an auto starting point but there are many ways to customize the filters and fine tune things.

All with the K7 & DA 18-55WR:

Heres a couple from the entrance to the farm, firstly with the 'straight' shots .....









Now here's the shot with the 'Vintage' look ....







And the 'Painting' ....








Here's another shot at the front ...






And covered in Plastic! ....







And seen through a window ....







As you can see from this next one when I'm not out catching the first blooms of spring, my life is filled with endless extreme sports action....






Ok, so thats not so great - lets not start a debate about the K7s AF tracking, or my wife's camera technique .... but what about the plastic look! ....






or the cartoonish drawing ....





I think they're both an improvement!


Here's a big tractor ....







And the Mosaic look ....






and covered in plastic again ....







and the painting style again...






I enjoyed all this so much that I took a few of my recent spring flower shots, and tried a few effects on those ....

































Well, I was amazed at the power lurking under the hood there of this software, which I use mainly as a front-end RAW converter, which it is brilliant at as well. What do you all think?

I use it most with manual lenses, the old kind that require stop-down metering (when you can't set the aperture on the camera and the camera can't give you a meter reading automatically). I press the green button and the aperture 'stops down' to the setting on the lens, and the camera takes a reading and sets the required shutter speed. An amazing function for us Pentax people allowing metering with these old lenses.

Also in 'M' mode, if you've made settings that are away from the 'centre correct' position, then the green button will restore these settings with one press. There are some other more obscure functions for it, but I can't remember any just now - they follow a pattern though of providing a return to the default of whatever you're doing.

Its a very striking effect with bold colours, deep contrasts and the glare of the sun coming straight at us!

I feel that camera settings may have reduced its effectivness a bit - f22 has not done any favours to the image quality I feel - this aperture is likely to be beyond the threshold where 'diffraction' creeps in, and this is apparent possibly with the rather unsharp appearance of the tree & blossoms. Also a wider aperture, perhaps f11 (?), would have given you a snappier shutter speed which would also have helped sharpness.

I suggest you try compositions of this type of tree which are more extreme at both ends - so either right up close with flowers right in your face and the background out of focus, or further back to see the whole tree.

But as I said at the start, great bold colours and its shows the beauty of a new spring.

I'm sure gwing is right and strideys original composition was best - I only asked if he had tried some others as I thought the scene might have rewarded some experimentation.

For me the raised shadows are an improvement in terms of a natural dynamic range, which was what I felt the scene needed more of - but there has been a tradeoff with some poorer contrast coming in (a haziness), which I accept hasn't done the shot any favours. This is clearly a technical limitation, either of the image at capture or the software treatment. So its up to you Stridey to decide whats best, or indeed try something halfway in between.

It would be a loss I think if we stiffled all criticism or different ideas on people photos - to answer GlowingBlues points above ... just because an attempt to adjust the photo based on the critical suggestions is not a clear success first time, that does not mean the suggestions or critisicm is invalid, and certainly does not mean they are based on jelousy. In most cases it just means it was worth a try and consideration, & if it can't work on that particular image for some reason then it gets banked in memory for consideration on future images.