I spoke in a broader term then one could get the expression of.

But in this case, especially since it is a community magazine you should expect the general courtesy of getting credited.

If you are the only one, or one of very few who did not get credited it could be a slip-up by their part. Ask them.

In any case, a small notice in a later issue, hopefully including your photos shouldn't be to much to ask for. (This would display more obviously your work. Something just a small text wouldn't be able to do.)
A big commercial publizer might not want to agree to this, reason I did mention the last resort of legal actions, but I see no reason as to why a community magazine would have anything against such a correction.

Let me put it in different terms that might make it more clear.

A bookstore want to up their sales a bit and goes looking for an excellent book.
They find one, and decides to OCR only the story in the book.
After striping away the cover, the title, and whatever else there is that might identify the book, they re-print it under their own name and cover.
Now they start to sell the book for personal profit.

It is wrong on so many levels. Not to forget, that since no one knows who wrote the book, the author lose out on any book deals that might have come because of his excellent work.

The author is now doing involuntary pro bono.

The difference between the two are not that big tbh.

Video is probably the greatest difference between the K5 and the K5 II.
I would read this, as it applies to the K5 as well.
If that is enough to get by in video-mode, I would probably just get an okay second-hand K5, and use the difference on glass, or save it instead.

Comparing the K5 to the K5 IIs is a bit different though.
And here you need to know if the lack of the low-pass-filter will matter to you.

As I see it:
'K5 -> K5 II' - mainly tech upgrade, and the video mode.
'K5 -> K5 IIs' - same upgrades as to the K5 II, but this time also some noticable IQ improvement.

If you are comming from the K20D I think you would be more then happy with the K5, probably more so if you can get a bargain on a second hand one

Not entirely sure how it works over there, but here at least, if they forget the acknowledgement you have a right to be compensated for it, and they have to correct it with a note sometime in a later issue.

Currently here it is a freelance fee (#flf from now on).
i. They use your image with your consent, and credit you correctly, it is 1x #flf.
ii. They use your image with your consent, but forget to credit you, it is 2x #flf.
iii. They use the image without your consent, and do not credit you, it is 3x #flf.
iv. If they refuse to compensate, and you have to go the legal way, it will be 3x #flf plus whatever legal fees you have had.

Case iii. have gotten a bit too common lately. Because you submit your image to one magazine (by case i.), and they add it to a shared database.
Then some time later another magazine find the image in the database and decides to run with it (iii.).

With the popularity of SNS magazines and newspapers have gotten too cocky these days. They often believe they are able to use whatever images they like without any regards about the photographer.

My advice, if you really are upset about it, is to figure out what laws apply where you are, and use them.

A dream can often remain just that. It will also mean a lot of overlap

There is a lot of different legacy stuff that still is sublime as well, some will cost you a leg for sure.

Kinds like:
'Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC APO HSM' for sports.
'Leica R Summicron 90mm f/2 APO' for portraits.
'Voigtlander SL I 125 f/2.5 APO-Lanthar' for macro.

I just got handed to me the solution by my 4 year old niece!

It was basically to roll some cardboard together to form a big enough circle.
Actually many circles in circles, so I only needed one copy.

Screw the entire thing on a lens like it was a lens hood, then take a test shot with 25mm opening, if I spoted vignetting, remove the inner most circle and I now had a 27mm opening etc. Continue until I spot the vignetting disappear at f-max and infinity.

I got some big suprises and I am curious if this sounds just too far fetched.
Pentax K200 f2.5 have a hood thread of 77mm, the front element is about 76mm, and vignetting stopped around 32mm

Considering this, would a 85 f1.2 end up with 33mm, and a 55 f1.2 with 28mm?

Only the wide ones showed much of high numbers. Like 21mm, 24mm and 28mm lenses that went up toward 37mm.


Now to the question, where to find suitable step-down rings?
(I am way to lazy to actually mold them as well.)

@Spotmetre, I have found a better spot now. That area had two street lights, might explain the lighting. It was also in the middle of the city!

@John, The lens was mint, and with 8sec exposure (no tracker..). I was however not actually trying to shade the lens from incoming light though.

It was revealed too soon,
but yeah, I am probably the only nut-job that voted for #2

I would probably not been able to guess which of the ones had gone through what process, but #1 stood out as the one 'crafted' the most.
As in, it was 'tailor-made' to be more broadly pleasing, kinda like pop music

For me atleast #1 lost its character, and I honestly have never seen anything like that anywhere outside.
The bottom 1/3rd looks off(especially the grass), the tree-line to the right looks too 'perfect', and the 'fog' leaving the lake toward the hill looks like a 'turd'

Stay away!

If you are in clip range of that site, you are too close.

It have been blacklisted for quite some time as a scam-site.
Their usual method to lure people, is to contact you by seemingly posing as one of your friends through email, and recommend their site.

Dusk and Dawn pictures really are my enjoyment.

For that I really have taken a liking in #1.
I do wish the shoreline was not cut though.
Considering how well you did on the bottom right corner, maybe you could have moved the tripod half a step to the left to keep the continous shoreline.
Besides that, lovely

#2 on the other hand could need a tiny bit of work.
Maybe make the clouds a little bit brighter.
If the detail is there, also bring out the ground a bit more. As of now, I keep wanting to appreciate the clouds, but my eyes keep wanting to go to that fuzzy tombstone.

Alternativly, make the clouds a bit brighter.
Darken the ground to make the tomb stone unreadable, and not just a distraction.
Then do a different crop so the bottom 1/3rd of the image is not just black without silhouettes or anything.

PM sent regarding BDG-4 grip.

[edit] Bummer, listed as UK only
Will just have to see what he replies