Thanks Gareth, I will heed your advice; I have started substituting the images with smaller files which is quick and straightforward if rather tedious, and will look at T&Cs. You are right, I am being criticised for publishing Parkrun images when it was the organiser who chose to put them on Facebook not myself, they were offered for their own use as they saw fit.

Gareth, I will let you into a secret: I am aiming to compile a panel of images for a Fellowship application to the RPS depicting the determination and range of emotions involved. Not all these are on the website as the subjects could be offended at having a vulnerable moment out there for all to see - extremes of joy, tears and despair are all there. The RPS requires digital copies to be of a certain size for viewing at 100% on a computer screen even if prints are submitted, so I have got into the habit of filing pdfs to meet the criteria. The website was a spur of the moment idea and not really thought through, an offshoot of the main purpose and never intended as a commercial venture. If running clubs and individuals want to use them that’s fine, payback as it were for being the subjects of my project. It would just be nice though if they said thanks for sending them.

Thanks Lubbyman and Gareth, this started off as a personal project and wasn’t intended as a commercial venture. I only sent the website link to Parkrun because they asked me to send photos; I did have a condition, since deleted, that photos were for personal use only and if wanted for editorial use then a price would be negotiated. That of course would preclude Parkrun from using the images but I didn’t anticipate them posting on Facebook but just circulating to members. Anyhow their response is effectively saying I am not welcome so I shall stay away and just cover the organised events like marathons.

A short while ago I posted a few snaps of runners here which received generous comments. Anyhow this has developed somewhat with lots more photos, and whilst at a Parkrun recently the organisers said they would like me to send photos to them. A local running club whose members also featured said the same thing so rather than spending time sorting through hundreds of photos and posting them out I had the idea of putting them together on a dedicated website: link.

The Parkrun group posted this on Facebook only for Parkrun HQ to require it taken down, they don't want runners having images on social media when they don't wish to (fair enough), but they didn't realise I was a "professional" photographer who charges for work (actually just for prints which is fair I think) and they don't want to encourage other photographers at their runs. This is in contrast to the many runners who wave and smile when they see the camera as well as the attendees who welcomed me.

Next up I went to a big running event last weekend and whilst at the finish line some posed for their photos, but not expecting this I had no means of giving them contact details. As several were wearing club vests I sent the photos to each club later asking that they be passed on and in the meantime decided to print cards for handing out in the future. Not one of them has had the courtesy to reply thanking me so having processed each photo, spent time finding contact details which many clubs don't include on their websites, I am feeling a bit pissed off.

For Pentax to continue as a business it must attract new customers as well as keeping the current users happy. No-one is saying we must keep upgrading to new models every couple of years but a hard core of aficionados who only buy a camera once in a blue moon isn’t going to benefit the brand one iota. I don’t understand this viewpoint that because someone is happy to hang onto their kit for years then any new developments are unnecessary. Who now buys a new medium format Pentax? The last model came out eight years ago and with no sign of anything new it would be a rash person who spends thousands on a body and lenses when there are newer and better options available, the system looks like being abandoned and it all risks becoming virtually worthless. The full frame range is looking as if it will follow suit; the K3.III was teased and trailed for about two years but at least we knew that Pentax was committed to developing something new and exciting in that format, but all we have now is a perhaps or maybe they might develop a film camera but making no promises. I am perfectly happy with my Pentax kit for now but if the old one fails I would be foolish not to look at the alternatives which are more committed to staying in the business for years to come.

I am with you on this one, if my K1 dies will I replace it with a new one or look elsewhere? I am more than happy with it but with nothing new on the horizon it would most likely mean changing systems.

I still have a half exposed film in my SF7 from five years ago, a freebie I put in on a whim. Can I be bothered to finish it and send for processing? No. There is a lot of stuff talked about the romance of film but can you really see a difference in the results? I don’t think so. YouTubers wax on about film slowing down the photographic process but that’s just as easy to do with a bit of self control and being more selective. I have switched off the auto preview function on my cameras for practical reasons and only properly judge an image when it’s on the computer screen; that just means I see results a bit sooner than with film and I am not harming the environment with toxic chemicals.

Does anyone get what this means: “ One of the new challenges we have taken on is the development of PENTAX-brand film cameras. We feel this will provide camera fans with a joy of photography totally different from what they experience in the digital format. I want to stress that this announcement does not mean we will release new film cameras.”?

I just hope this doesn’t mean development of new DSLRs will be impacted, if a new full frame body isn’t announced sometime soon they might as well give up the digital market.

Er, rangefinder camera actually but the point is still relevant. I seem to recall that Fujifilm’s Instax cameras are their biggest earner, a surprise considering all the digital cameras they produce.

That’s pretty impressive! The latest software does appear to be something of a breakthrough, I gave up on a denoising software I bought a few years ago as the results weren’t good but recently I tried ON NoNoise which is transformative, not only does it eliminate noise but also sharpens without reintroducing it. To let you into a secret, I used it for my latest deer shots posted here! It doesn’t work in every case and only (as far as I can tell) across the whole image whereas in Lightroom I would selectively apply noise reduction where it was more obvious, but it is definitely an improvement. I am now revisiting some shots I took some time ago that were too noisy, which shows it is worth keeping otherwise decent shots on file even if at the time they aren’t obviously useable.