Thing is, I use Virgin and there is a fair amout of free web space, on which I did put a Noddy few pages. I'd just like not to use yet another service and have a bit of control. This happened with my Apple gallery, which is now just a hundred image files that the (at least) put on my machine. But I had copies of these anyway.
I found that I have iweb on my iMac, which does what I want to an extent at no more cost.

They replaced my k10d there and then, in the shop when I showed the in viewer display was turning off. Credit where credit's due. (They still don't seem to know much in there, though.)

I used to use the me.com gallery service and it looked very nice, presenting my pictures very 'flatteringly'. That service ended in June and I should like to build a website on webspace that I pay for anyway.

I know that many photographers have their own websites and I suspect that many of you design your own. I should like to know what web-building tools people use. I really don't want to get to grips with Dreamweaver or the like because that involves a big investment of time and effort. There must be a huge range of suitable, less exotic tools and I'd be interested in what other PU members use. I have an imac and would rather not use web-based development tools because they are a lot less zippy.

Usual apologies if this question has already been answered recently (I did try a search) but the situation may have changed since it was answered last, in any case.

I did use my Gorillapod once, to hang the camera onto a pole. It sagged with the weight of the K10D and I though it was going to fall off. It has its uses for holding a remote flash, though.

Great stuff - thanks Dr. J.
I had put Aperture onto 'onscreen proofing', which does its best to show you what the print will look like. Without that switched on, the pictures are identical.
RESULT.

I think I have done something daft (no surprise there) but, when I am using Aperture ('modern' imac) and send a file to be edited in Photoshop, the colour balance changes drastically. Both pictures, side by side, are disturbingly different. When the file is saved, it goes back to the original colour balance.
This is a new problem and I have probably been tinkering where I shouldn't.
Has anyone any idea what I may have done and which particular settings I should be looking at?

I remember my Dad telling me that a Photo should have only one thing in it. (He meant one message, of course).

Here's the Eiffel tower with Auntie May and a juggler: without looking at the photo you can predict it'll not be a good picture.

I remember standing on the Rialto Bridge, trying to get an interesting picture of it in a crowd of about a million tourists. A Scots woman, next to me, told her companion very loudly and with great authority: "A picture with nobody in it is boring". Auntie May and the Eiffel Tower rides again.

The only thing you should usually avoid cutting off it people's feet cos that will usually look like a mistake. Get in close for a start or you'll need to crop so much that you'll end up with a 2Mpixel picture to play with.

I reckon that applies even when you use a 14mm lens for a landscape.

that gives me something else to think about - thanks. The focussing thing could be a real factor when dealing with flighty birds.
Is the IQ of the sigmas good? i.e. better than just blowing up the picture without the TC?

Is there any up to date thinking on teleconverters? I have had my 60-250 for a while now and it gives excellent IQ. To have 500mm would be really useful for 'nature'. If I could achieve this with a 2X converter, without sacrificing too muchon quality, it would make my life complete (at least, for a while).

I saw both those reviews but I got a bit overwhelmed by facts.
I guess the extra speed of the 14mm lens makes it significantly more suitable for indoor use, particularly because I would need to use a wider angle flash than I own, for the occasional 'party' picture.