I'm enjoying using this [ thanks Mike ] but have suddenly realised something - or maybe it's me .

Am I correct in seeing slight vignetting in these pics ? Is there any way of avoiding this ?

It's not obvious if I have something other than slightly blown sky in the top corners .

1)
[IMG]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a41/Anhelyna/IMGP1476.jpg[/IMG]

2)
[IMG]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a41/Anhelyna/IMGP1474.jpg[/IMG]

3)
[IMG]http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a41/Anhelyna/IMGP1429.jpg[/IMG]

Stefan - I can't cope with another 7 page thread dithering between one make and another .

Oggy thought about it and acted on his feelings.

He , in his eyes, made an informed decision .

Now go thou and do the same about your new computer - dithering is NOT good

Only one thing to do - Photoshop it in

SLC are not renowned for their brilliant use of language

Our local Cemetery was suffering from vandalism so they wrote new regulations - sounds OK but we got a copy of them [ can't find it now of course ] but it was written in such a way that no animals at all were permitted to enter - this successfully ruled out horse drawn hearses - and believe it or not we see quite a few of them .

There was also something rather stupid about access during daylight hours - though I can't remember what it was now - but I seem to remember something about vehicular access was only permitted for funerals during day time and only by one gate .Access during hours of darkness was by another gate, which would be locked at an indicated time - but they had forgotten about the other 3 gates which could not be locked as they were permanently open or missing . There was something about cars only getting access to one drive through the cemetery - but this main one does not give access to all the cemetery . You really could drive a horse and carriage through these new ' improved' regulations.

My husband did contact them and was told that the regulations had been approved by their legal advisors and were crystal clear - they had also been through the clear information system [ or whatever the scheme is called ]

Needless to say he did not give up - he really did have the bit between his teeth and he really castigated them for this sloppy set of regulations and detailed all the errors one by one .

Eventually SLC did agree to re-write them and this time got it correctly drafted and then before publication asked him to check it over

Flossie and Algi

Though I'm starting to try and go manual for speed I still tend to use AV - and as a result only set the Aperture - the rest the K-x does for me

Why did I shoot at +0.7EV - I dunno - I'm not aware of doing anything with that

Cropping is the last thing I tend to do so that intrusive post would have gone .

I'll admit to still being doubtful about choosing the correct Aperture setting for conditions - I'll often take 2 shots and change the f stop for the second to see which turns out best

Flipping cold in the mornings though - but the sun comes out and stays out My sunlounge is heating the downstairs sitting room and there the temp has now reached 73 degrees !!. I've had to open windows to keep it from rising further !!

Actually - having looked again I think it's the pelvic girdle that give it away

That ain't necessarily so

BIt anorexic for my liking

Well I have replied to the paper and have asked that my name and address are not published .

Here is a copy of what I have submitted

I'm stunned at South Lanarkshire's reaction to Alister Smith's request for permission to take pictures of flowers in the Cambuslang Public Park .

I then carried on reading the paper and spotted lots of photos taken at the Loud N Live event . Am I seriously to believe that your 'tog asked every single person [ or their carers ] for permission to take their pictures ? Some of them are of people and children who appear to be oblivious of the camera

OK returning to Mr Smith - his mistake was asking for permission - but I understand why he did.

According to the report, SLC in their statement said

Quote:
If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual that is the individual's personal information and they must give consent to its use. It would be very difficult for the Council to ensure that consent has been given therefore it opens the Council to complaints and possible litigation. It is potentially an infringement of other peoples human rights as they have a right to privacy in their daily life and it is also a breach of the Data Protection Act.

Hmmmm - so are we all asked for our permission to be caught on the various CCTV cameras that are everywhere nowadays ? Remember that not only are there Street Cameras , all the buses have them .

South Lanarkshire Council is wrong on both counts - there's no UK or EU privacy or DPA infringement (or is South Lanarkshire outside the UK/EU?. The only grey area is possibly whether the land is deemed to be 'private' and the title appears to be Cambuslang Public Park.

Generally it is NOT against the law to take pictures in public places anywhere in the UK. There are, however, certain common sense qualifications to take into account, such as not offending public decency or photographing anything that will bring the security forces down on you.

Signed - stunned amateur photographer

OOPS hit submit sooner than I intended. I hope the folk I have swiped some quotes from do not object to their use