Yes, so I think the right approach is to produce the smaller ones, optimised for the web with the bicubic sharper process, for the forums. This saves server space and helps your threads load quickly. In the case of this forum it may be that the photos get resized automatically, so there's probably little difference anyway, except the uploading speed.

The nice thing about using a dedicated process dialogue such as PhotoShops "save for web" (and no doubt the same for Philips PaintShop Pro), is that we don't have to do any calculations to figure out the correct sharpening settings (radius and amount) .... It's all sorted automatically based on the image size and quality settings.

I can't see anything in it Derek .... I'm only on my phone at the moment though. But there's clearly no point in uploading the bigger files.

Hi Peter, there are two types of workflow sharpening ....Capture and Output.

Capture sharpening is to correct for any inherent softness at the point of capture ...eg the effect of an AA filter . Also it is to take account of the subject type ...eg portraits or architecture, which would demand different amounts of Capture sharpening.

For camera jpegs then this process is applied via the custom image settings. For RAW then the process is applied in the RAW converter. The RAW advantage is of course that it can be selective, eg only for the eyes of a portrait.

Output sharpening is the last step before outputting a new version of your image....eg a jpeg for printing or a smaller one for the web. Both of these would demand a different account also (generally the larger images for print needing more).

I believe that many photographers do not apply sufficient Capture or Output sharpening, or miss one out altogether.

Algi, I've got a K7 !! ..... I need all the bloating I can get

Hi Philip, I have "poster prints" from Foto.com that are 100 x 70 cm. Looked at closely they are indistinquishable from the same shot printed at 5' x 7'.

I assume there is some kind of fancy software used to make that enlargement. When ordering online and choosing the size, the website indicates the suitability of the file .... It shows "optimum" until you choose a size too big, then it indicates " borderline" . The 100 x 70 cm size is the biggest I can go before it changes from "optimal".

Algi, yes that's right, sharpening has to he considered too. All too often we see good photos that are simply soft looking, due to lack of attention at the output stage. I have often had comments from people, things along the lines that they are surprised at how "sharp" the K7 is ..... If they took the trouble to sharpen appropriately at Capture and Output stages then everyone's cameras would be just as sharp!

I have read that the correct setting to use when reducing and compressing for the web is " bi-cubic sharper" ...... So I set that, without really understanding the underlying process, but it seems to work well.

You will hear the occasional complaint about large file sizes being uploaded to forums, eg more than 1.5 mb ..... This can slow things down for those without decent broadband, and is a significant issue for users of mobile data. I have often had to give up trying to view someone's photos when out and about because my phone or iPad can't load up the page. So I give up.

I think it is a good idea to carry out quality reduction for web display, just to ensure that everyone who we would like to see the photos can have easy access to them. I think there is nothing to be gained with files any larger about 600-800 kilobytes.

With out high resolution cameras now it also makes sense to chop the images down in size for the web also, as this simply helps the process of getting smaller files without huge compression. As I said, I chop to 70% with my K7 shots ....a K1user might be looking at around 40% .....

I reduce my photos to 70%, using the PS "save for web" process. I also use the quality setting to output a file size of approx 700kb. I have found from experience that this is the lower limit that usually avoids any artifacts such as banding on blue skies.

Certainly at these size and quality settings there is never any apparent loss of visual quality on any web based outlet.

There doesn't seem to be any point or advantage to setting specific image dimensions to suit a particular website. ... They all do things automatically regardless.

For printing I output a full sized jpeg and max quality (12) .... This generally produces a file around 7-10mb from the K7, again plenty enough for large prints using online services.

I think Ricoh should develop lenses going forward that will suit the needs of both aps-c and FF users, much like the D FA28-105 is enjoyed by both now, and current aps-c users can buy with a view to keeping when they go FF in future..... so forget the big, unnecessary 50mm and 85mm f1.4 .....

I agree with DrO earlier that a 20mm for the landscapers and architectural people is needed .... I would buy it too for now, but only if it met the combined needs criteria , i.e. I'd suggest it should be a D FA20mm f3.5, with a sensible size and weight. This I would market alongside a 16mm f4.0, with the same qualities. They would need to have superb optics, edge to edge sharpness, CA and distortion performance in order to outclass the third party budget (manual focus) competition (plus of course decent DC autofocus and WR).

If we could have also a D FA 17-35 F4 there would be some very happy Pentax Users around! This would be pitched at a budget below the mammoth 15-30, which would continue to offer the obvious extra benefits of being wider and "faster" to justify the much higher price. The 17-35 would continue the offer of versatility for users of both camera systems as its sibling primes (16mm and 20mm) .

I don't understand the emphasis and glamour surrounding ultra "fast" primes now ..... the need for "speed" from a lens surely disappeared for ever with the K5 .....? Even an 85f1.4 is surely an extravagance ..... bokeh for bokeh's sake. Come on, from 70mm onwards f1.8 is plenty enough for lovely portraits. Again, why not sell something that can appeal more widely ..... I'd go for a D FA120mm F2.4 with great rendering for portraits, sharp across the frame but not clinically like a macro.

As well there's room for a zoom that goes beyond the 28-105 and is more versatile for both formats ..... I'd go for a D FA85-350mm F4 - 5.6 ! Sound good?

I think the focal length equivalent conversion before (24-90 equals 16-60) is to indicate what zoom range would be needed on an aps-c camera to produce the same FOV as 24-90 on a FF camera.

24-85 or 90 is a fairly common range for FF. So I guess it's why we got the 17-70 and 16-45 / 50 lenses in the DA series.

I fully echo the sentiment about Pentax people getting out and trying "different" things! Really good to see something creative like this....

I do admit the style does not totally appeal personally (I find the whole rocks, moor, woman and fashion combo a bit too much of a juxtaposition!), but the photos are nicely done, and I applaud the exposure control.

The first two are great in all these respects with the surrounds really supporting the model and good even light with some punchy contrast. Personally I'd cool the colour balance as I find it a bit muddy and warm looking.

Looking forward to seeing some more from this shoot! ..... Could you take her to Canary Wharf next time .....?

Yes the highlights are held with the white dress, and the lighting spotlights her in those ones ... But the surrounds are a bit dull, so if possible I'd try and mask off the subject and raise the midtones around her a bit .... Should add a bit of sparkle which would be good I think.