Thanks for the link, WobblyGoblin. I've joined Bill Barnes in making my views clear in the comments section for the article using my alter-ego of GarrulusApis (geddit?).

Jon

As dougf8 discovered from reading the link in his most recent post, glass is not a super-cooled liquid, but an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid. For the inveterately curious, a comprehensive review of the physical and chemical properties of glass can be found here: link

Pre-formed glass can be made porous, at a molecular level, by chemical treatment, but is now also possible to manufacture glass substrates with defined pore sizes that have many applications in biomedical research.

I do not know whether or not the glass found in optical lens elements contains pores, but that it should do so by design seems counterintuitive, as this would have the effect of making it a 'dust magnet' and very difficult to keep clean. For this reason alone, I share Chris A's scepticism that it does.

Perhaps you can enlighten us further, Algi

Jon

In response to your question, my subsequent investigations have revealed that the ladybird is now but a shell of its former self. By contrast, its attacker continues to flourish and extend its web of deadly intrigue

Jon

I notice that you are running Windows 7 which has a much improved inbuilt firewall when compared with earlier iterations of the OS. So much so, in fact, that I wonder why you felt the need to install an additional 'software firewall, in the form of Bitdefender, especially, as others have noted, you already have the superior protection offered by the 'hardware firewall' built into your ADSL modem-router?

In my experience, many of the default settings used by software layer firewalls like Bitdefender result in an unnecessarily high level of alerts of this type, presumably, and somewhat perversely, this behaviour is a 'design feature' intended to reassure the purchaser that they made a wise choice and that the software is now working hard (overtime?) to protect their PC!

Unless you, or someone else in your household, has a propensity to visit on a regular basis sites that might loosely be referred to as 'high risk', or suffers from 'compulsive link/button clickers disease', I don't believe there is much to be gained by investing in a secondary software firewall package. If it forms part of an anti-virus/malware suite consider inactivating it, or, better still IMHO, replacing the entire suite with Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) - for nowt!

After many years of using commercial and/or free software packages to protect my PC and data whilst browsing, and since switching to Windows 7, I now use MSE on all our home PC/laptops (four in total) in conjunction with Malwarebytes anti-malware (Pro version; link), a combination that co-exists with out problem and provides an adequate level of protection at a very reasonable, IMHO, cost.

Hope this helps,

Jon

Unusually, for one one of your creations, it doesn't do it for me and without the written info', which reveals the effort that has gone into producing the image, I would probably have moved on without commenting.

I suggest that you consider converting to B&W and rotating the image so that the midrib is not orientated vertically.

Jon

I have the Pentax 16-45 and Sigma 17-70 (original version).

I bought the 17-70 for the extra range at the 'long end' and have not been disappointed by its optical performance when used with the K20D. It is a little prone to flare but this can often be compensated for by slight repositioning of the camera in relation to the light source and/or use of the hand or a small piece of black card. In common with many Sigma lenses, the colour balance can be a little on the cool side of neutral for some users, but this is easily corrected for at the PP stage, as is the, IMHO, modest distortion produced by the lens; especially if one uses LR. It is a fairly weighty lens, but this is to my liking and, ergonomically, I have found it it a good partner for the K20D with grip. Overall, and not having resorted to protracted pixel-peeping, I have not noticed any deficiencies in the performance of the 17-70 when compared with the 16-45.

I have no direct experience of the Pentax 17-70mm, but, having read many reviews and user's comments, and viewed many images produced using it, have often wondered what it is that justifies its premium price tag when compared with the Sigma: perhaps it has been my good fortune to have obtained a 'good example' of the latter

Jon

K20D, SMC-D FA 100mm Macro with 31mm extension tube and fill-flash.

[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6164/6210347651_9416a39655_b.jpg" class="comment_image" />

01: The dressmaker! by Dr 'B ', on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6049/6210860222_d3469c4608_b.jpg" class="comment_image" />

02: Measuring! by Dr 'B ', on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6155/6210860586_54385937d4_b.jpg" class="comment_image" />

03: Fitting! by Dr 'B ', on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6019/6210860940_1144b18cf0_b.jpg" class="comment_image" />

04: Finished article! by Dr 'B ', on Flickr[/img]

In response to attack, the ladybird has released haemolymph (blood) from its leg joints (reflex bleeding). The orange-yellow fluid, droplets of which can be seen in images 2 and 3, is a repellent and in some species contains toxins.

C&C welcome

I think that greyreynolds999 suggestion is a good one and I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to arrange for the ID/signature of the user to be removed automatically during the upload; either, as suggested, until they chose to reveal their identity or automatically after an agreed period for the submission of feedback had elapsed (e.g. 72h). Either system would be likely, IMO, to improve the objectivity of the review process.

A further refinement might be to have the uploaded images grouped by category, thereby allowing prospective reviewers to concentrate on images likely to be of direct interest to them.

Jon

Indeed it is, Mike. For earlier versions there were supposedly 'work arounds' available that would at least let one create 16-bit layers in Elements, but I could never get them to work. My policy now is to do most of the critical editing (WB, exposure, cloning/spot removal, contrast, hue and saturation) on a virtual copy of the .DNG (Adobe RGB) in LR and, where necessary, switch to 8-bit sRGB in PSE for anything else (usually just selective sharpening using layers and the high-pass filter and then resizing).

Jon

Normally, I abhor the use of racial stereotypes, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I discovered the nationality of the creator of this amazing lens database

link

Original link found on RiceHigh's Pentax Blog:

link

I now realise that I'm further to the left on the OCD spectrum than I'd previously thought

Jon