Phew... I was watching this amd would have bought it if it hadn't sold by tomorrow. I don't 'need' a fish eye but the price was great!

Shaun, I may be willing to take that offending Canon off your hands at no cost. Oh yes, Canon compacts are rubbish so I'll be doing you a favour really. Honest!

Well the reason Matt's used flash is because he's used Wix to build the site, and Wix uses flash. Why use Wix? It's very flexible, intuitive and free. Personally I don't see the big issue with flash, I've just viewed the site on my smart phone and it worked fine.

The site - I like the layout and look. Love the font and color scheme. Kind of agree with other comments re the intro page and I'm not massively into 'flowery language' either although I can look past that.

Not quite with you, Bernard :

Right. Then a month or two before the new warranty is up, time to decide what lens to replace it with when you sell the damn thing!

Click on 'My Settings' (next to your profile pic above left). Then click on 'Profile Information'. You can paste the URL to your Flickr page in the 'My Signature' box, or in the 'My Website' box if you don't want it included at the bottom of every post you make.

(Instead of displaying the URL you can make it more interesting by putting some text like 'Click here for my Flickr page!' or 'One or two odd snaps I have taken'. Select that text then click the 'Link' button - THEN paste your URL).

The link will just take people to your Flickr account, they will not be able to see pictures not marked public, unless they are already a contact on Flickr.

Yep that's the problem, the 'lensors' have different sized sensors in them.

I particularly like this post from Shutterfinger's blog, especially his closing statement:



http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/2011/12/a-cure-for-the-photograph...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'All 35mm'... aren't they just quoting equivalent 35mm focal length - a standard practise really?

Another thing is that those aren't lenses they are 'lensors'... all that additional cost and R&D of including a paired sensor in a sealed unit.

Hopefully the introduction of the M mount unit, and the acquisition of Pentax, with it's lens making expertise and back catalogue, shows they have realised that interchangeable lenses is probably more of a sensible way to go!

Dead right IMO too, but in this case there was no ongoing relationship between the tog and the model, she gave him permission to take her picture and that was the end of it, so from that point it's up to the photographer what he wants to do with the shot. He can treat the shot as if it was a commercial shoot and practise touching up blemishes, or retain it as a candid portrait of an indivual, spots and all.

Poor Vera must be getting paranoid about this thread - let's just be clear: her spots were not at all that bad and you wouldn't look twice at them - you'd just see her rather nice looking face! The discussion of removing spots is part of what you might do for a commercial shoot or a portrait shoot, and would normally be the sort of thing a client would request.

Re the whole blemish removal debate, I think it's long established practice for photographers to give reality a helping hand with the use of soft focus and darkroom/PP techniques. I am, however, uncomfortable with the extremes this has gone too when it comes to actually altering body shapes, particularly when these images are known to be primarily consumed by young women who insist upon comparing themselves to these digitally enhanced models.