Two great graphical captures - I like the white balance shown here, a nice creamy mix of whites with some tungsten overtones. Is that 2nd one the famous cantilever stairs in Somerset House?

From looking through the specs the K3 introduces a number of new control complexities over and above earlier models. The obvious one is the 'aa filter simulator', but then there's also additional fine controls for AF point selections and 'AF point arrays' to set up, AF tracking priorities, and some new button / lever arrangements.

So yes, there's a new learning curve. How are new users finding the switch from an older camera, and are they taking advantage of these new control complexities I have listed?

I'm not criticising your photography, the shots are very well taken and framed - I'm saying that the apparent 'resolution' of the lens is poor, resulting in softness and lack of fine detail. I don't know if this could be improved with a different aperture, but I see this as a weakness in ultra-wide angle zooms, as opposed to a prime like my Samyang 14mm.

The point was that the prime offered edge to edge high quality resolution, a quality I think is important for this type of photgraphy due to the need to place close foreground interest and edge objects.

Zooms are a compromise in this respect, but the prime makes you move around more.

Thankyou very much for that explanation - I'll try out those options as you detail, although I only have CS2 & Elements 8 - not sure if the options will be there, but I'll have a good look and report back.

Regarding Image Size - that was where I was getting confused, because there is no 'Pixel Aspect Ratio' setting there - are you saying that if the pixel aspect ratio had been changed previously as you described through the View menu, that unticking 'constrain proportions' would in fact produce a file with pixels in the new ratio?

I think its wise to be cautious. Because good composition at ultra-wide angles often depend on very close detailed foreground and tight edge framing, I feel that IQ quality is very important right to the edges with these lenses. That's why I bought the Samyang 14mm, as opposed to a similarly priced zoom.

I admire the compositions of the castle & abbey shots shown above, but the distortions are not comfortable, and the resolution of the shots is fairly terrible. For me that would be a price too high to pay just for the added flexibility of a zoom

Yes, that part of it - although its also about matching the aspect ratio of the source (ie photos) to the output ratio (ie a widescreen TV) - good practice. I admit, I'm also fishing for info and ideas on whether this is actually necessary, or offers any quality benefit. I'm mainly interested in the effect it might have on the quality of pan / zoom motion paths of photos across the video frame - the interlacing here can cause jaggies and ripples on the images as they move around.

The photos are part of the video stream of course - so what I am unsure of is whether during the rendering process (into a new 'widescreen PAL HD .mpg file) the format template actually re-draws all the pixels into the appropriate rectangular shape? If so, because the photos are part of that same video that may mean their pixels are also re-drawn to the new aspect ratio? That seems logical to assume ....

But, being a quality obsessive I can't help wondering if there is some advantage to importing the photos pre-prepared with the rectangular pixels already - the less work the rendering process has to do to change the photos the better I feel? And then I saw the option in photoshop - but its not clear how to do it on an image file, its only there on the New document dialogue.

The lighting seems to work well in relation to the guitars colour and reflections from the surface. The pearl tone and browns come through very nicely. My own preference would be for a wider spread of light, cast completely evenly across the whole image.

Silkypix is onto version 5 now. The free versions offered with some cameras are normally older, and you could upgrade for a price if you really liked it.

There has long been some confusion and apparent inconsistency in the software provided with Pentax cameras. The DSLRs have a unique programme, Pentax Digital Camera Utility, which is often incorrectly called 'silkypix' - its not, it just uses some of the processing algorithms and some similarities in a few adjustment panels.

But then Pentax have been releasing some cameras with older versions of the full Silkypix programme. I can only assume this was easier than redesigning PDCU for each new camera control layout.

This may be fairly obscure, but I wonder if there is some knowledge or experience of this issue out there ....

On the train, flicking (intently & most studiously) through Mr Evening's 680 page book on Photoshop CS2, I noticed a setting within the 'new document' dialogue. This was 'Pixel Aspect Ratio'. The writer explained that this would be required for outputs such as widescreen video displays where the pixels are not square, but wider in fact.

Well I use such a display format - with my Pentax K7 videos, which are re-rendered into a PAL widescreen HD resolution. I use images from the K7 as well, in the introductions, with panning and multiple image effects within the frame.

I am wondering if for this specific output purpose, when resizing shots for the videos, if they should also be converted to a wide 'Pixel Aspect Ratio' at the same time, to match the aspect ratio of the widescreen monitor?

And secondly - the setting I saw was in the 'New Document' dialogue in PS ... this creates a new blank canvas, but there's no content. When re-sizing a photo I would use 'Image Size' - but this has no setting for Pixel Aspect Ratio. So if I am to try this feature, I don't understand how to apply it to an actual photo. How do the New Document settings (a blank canvas) relate to an actual photo, and can I put a K7 image onto a new blank canvas with the adjusted pixel aspect ratio setting ??

Any thoughts, ideas, or solutions gratefully received.

Really good, beautiful image .