The dreamy child bit makes sense to me,

For me there isn't any confusion between the photographer and the hypothetical 'dreamy child', through whose eyes the photographer is inviting you to see the world. I actually think it's a nice bit of writing. 'Inviting you to look at' might be better than 'to make you look at' though.

The pictures, of course, must match the promise implied by the writing - from what you have written I would be expecting recognisable objects but from a strikingly fresh and surprising perspective. The abstracts are great but don't quite deliver that for me. If those are the images you are exhibiting, I might rethink the description slightly.

In the last paragraph, yes - include more details about you, and perhaps avoid restating your interest in photographing things from a different perspective, which you have already stated in the preceding paragraphs.

Agree on omitting the Pentax user bit, and Gary's comment re 'local exhibitions'.

That last one's my favourite... crazy! I have to find out if they hold any jetski competitions near me - there's a great water park nearby at Kingsbury....

Thanks David. Although now I look again, I'm going to have to watch out for posterisation in some of them, esp. in the skies.

I presume you mean on B&W film, Deryn. You can preview the effects of B&W colour filters in photoshop - for example the attached shot (originally taken in colour) is shown with yellow, red, blue and green filters (clockwise from top left). Note the effect on skin tones and the green background, and strikingly, the blue fabrics!







I would say an orange filter would strike a good balance as I find the red a bit intense, and the yellow a bit subtle.

You can of course shoot colour film and do this in photoshop, just as with digital!

Had to take some shots of this place for work. I have used a Topaz filter on the second version of each shot below - I was wondering if this was OTT or if they are an improvement on the originals (the first of each pair is virtually stright out of camera with just a tweak to the curves).

I think you mean 'oar', Doug.

But back to the shot.... well, I think a bit more imagination re the lighting would have improved the shot. The shadows are too harsh for me.

The camera reads the dx coding on the film canister and sets itself automatically. Advantage - you'll never leave the camera on the wrong ISO by mistake. Disadvantages - if you load your own film canisters from a bulk spool, or want to shoot at an ISO other than the one your film is rated at, you'll need to purchase dx coding labels.

I also had both, and in my case, sold the 21mm. I guess I had got used to the slightly narrower fov of the 24mm, and 21mm felt like a niche focal length to spend that sort of money on. It was also less Sharp, with more distortion, although the glare resistance was superb.

The most straightforward explanation is that bits are not directly translatable into number of stops of DR, which is the point I've been making all along! As someone else stated, you could have a camera with a mere 7 stop dynamic range, but captured in glorious 16 bits - which means that the tones the camera did capture would be more finely divided, allowing finer gradations of tone.

Where has the extra 'bit' come from?

There is little evidence that the 'extra two bits' in the K5 makes much if any difference to shadow recovery. Note the K30 comparative review on PF.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-30-review/image-quality.html