I know what you mean... they probably think that someone taking shots of them is helping them spread their message! I took loads more, as he was such an obliging subject:








Unfortunately i missed the best shot when my film ran out... a group of three muslim girls engaged him in conversation, and I had it framed so nice in my viewfinder - he was wildly gesticulating and their expressions of mildly amused skeptisism were priceless!

I decided to FINALLY finish off a film that's been lingering in my P30n for about a year so I took it into town today, and came across this guy! An hour later I was on my way home with the negs and CD from Snappy Snaps.









The results 400ASA colour print film were very grainy, so I went black and white. Not impressed with Snappy Snaps scans - they are small and compressed

Shot with P30n and 135mm f3.5.

I also took some with the new DA35mm, and they came out well!

Beautiful photographs.... weird subjects! Still, nice to have a model that always smiles and doesn't blink when you press the shutter...

[/quote]I would delete all and every swan photo, I'm afraid.[/quote]

One question for the OP.. rather than skirt dangerously with overexposed / blown highlights, would it not be better to achieve this look in Post?

You could always set the camera jpeg settings to +1 or +2 EV for instant preview and then (shooting RAW+jpeg) have the normally exposed RAW to play with if need be.

As John said, you can turn up the in-camera sharpening. I am guessing this lack of 1:1 sharpness is not something you'd see in an A3 print anyway.
And I know some people avoid post processing if they can, but you are nuts if you are spending a grand on a DSLR without a basic knowledge of, or willingness to learn about, post processing. IMHO of course!

It certainly is a chaffinch. It looks like a combination of too low a shutter speed for the lens and too extreme of a crop have caused this softness. How much of the original image are we looking at? Less than 25 percent?

Of course numpties will always be vulnerable to being ripped off, no matter how safe the system.

If you stick to the guidelines and use Paypal only, you should be fine! If Ebay took money from your account there would either be a good reason, e.g. fees you have incurred from selling items... I would imagine charging your account in error would be extrememly rare, and would be an error which could easily be resolved.

Seems silly to be arguing about this again... of course you can PP jpegs, but there will be an advantage to using RAW as long as it has those 'extra bits' which jpeg 'throws away'. There's an argument for not using RAW unless you know you are going to do more drastic PP, e.g. exposing for the highlights in the sky which will mean you will need to lift the foregound by a couple of stops.

No. 6 is FANTASTIC! It's got the cool atmosphere of the rest of the shots... but it's also nice and sharp! It could stand a crop.

No. 9 is less sharp but such a great pose that it can be forgiven. It's a rock gig after all

4 and 8 are pretty acceptable too, what they lack in sharpness they make up for in atmosphere.

Constructive crit - no. 1 and 2 seem to bright and no.2 makes the microphones too prominent. No. 3 is a little indistinct and spoiled by the microphone placement. 5, 7 and 10 are soft and suffer from the challeging lighting a bit.

I note that this thread has been used to generate an article - good idea!

But it's only available to PU Plus members

Preaching to the converted? Wouldn't it be better in an area of the site accessible to casual web browsers?