Wayne - my apologies, I have just found out what you meant by the 6x6 sizes, somehow they crept into the 3x2 format pricings right after the largest size... must have been those late nights slaving away over a hot keyboard!

I have now made the updates you suggested in your points 2&3, and have removed the 6x6's from where they weren't meant to be.... thanks very much for bringing that to my attention! :)

Adam

Firstly thanks to Helle, Gayne and Tunde (so far) for signing the guestbook, doesn't look quite so lonely in there now! ;)

Rich - thanks mate, and yup it works fine on Firefox, not sure how to go about fixing that for Chrome really... maybe I'll send an email to the provider.... oh, and I checked on Google analytics for its first day of being live and only 5% of visitors were using Chrome (over 90% Firefox or Internet Explorer).... still worth looking into though so ta! I'll be darkening the doorsteps of the capital maybe sometime before Christmas, most likely not long into the new year, will of course keep you posted..

Wayne - thanks very much for these suggestions, some good points! 2 & 3 I am taking on board and will incorporate in the coming day or two. I didn't actually check how it looked on white yet cos as long as I can remember I've wanted a site with a dark background as, conversely, I find it to be easier on the eyes!!! I'll have a play around though and judge each on its merits, who knows I might switch direction eventually ;)

I can't make sense of your first suggestion though unless I am to be as bold as to suggest you may have mis-read the sizes on some images.... 6x6 implies a square format.... the square images I have for sale start at 8x8, running up to 16x16. The smallest size I am offering in 2:3 format is 9x6 (nine by six), perhaps it is this which you got it mixed up with..? As far as I can see, nowhere on the site am I offering a 6x6, though do please correct me with a link to the specific page if I am wrong.

Thanks to all for the input so far, any more suggestions and feedback and I'll be glad to hear it!

Cheers,

Adam

hehe funny! thanks for sharing :)
(10 yeses btw)

I did a shot last weekend for this challenge, just never got round to looking at it until now... anyway here it is, seems there is some talk of different ways of light painting so I thought it might be useful if I described how I took this shot...

The settings used were: - 12mm, iso 250, 30sec, f/4.5, manual focus at infinity, 2 second self-timer on a tripod, manual mode

I left an outdoor light on at the house (behind and to camera left) to light up some of the fallen leaves, and gave it a little helping hand with a large maglite torch, which I used to "paint" the trees as well. I'd never seen anything like this before - a huge rainbow-like halo around the moon (which was perfectly circular, what you see here is due to lens distortion), so hurried to make any sort of composition before it disappeared... shooting wide open on infinity focus as I did here is usually a safe bet for getting useable shots of star trails etc, but you will often throw any near foreground quite out of focus, as you can see at the bottom here. I could have shot further stopped down at something like f/8 but without the cable release I was limited to 30secs and was hesitant to bump the iso up too high to avoid introducing too much noise into the dark areas. Anyway hope that was of some use to someone :)

Look forward to seeing some more interesting entries, some nice work so far.

Adam

scary stuff... I've already mailed the petition to a number of friends and family members to spread the word.... also going to write to my local MP... this just isn't on.

I have no experience with petitions of this kind, what sort of numbers do you think it'll need to reach before the government takes notice? Seems to me even if it was 90% of the population the current administration would still find a way to force it through.... becoming more and more like 1984..... :-(

do you have a link to the original documentation outlining the proposed changes?

yeah I noticed that... nice addition :)

I don't really know what to make of it all... is it really as destructive and underhand as it seems? I have to admit my first reaction was one of disbelief and slight rage... I'm with you that this might open the floodgates... anyway I signed up, and will sign off here before I start ranting...

how did you come across this info by the way? Haven't heard a jot about it until reading this post, but then I guess that's what they'd want isn't it.... really can't understand why this is solely being levelled at photographers.. (not that it would be in any way better if all the other media were included too!)

those are brilliant... excellent combination of real photographic skill with a talented artistic eye... good find dude, thanks for sharing

well done Richard, surprised this hasn't happened sooner... big congrats!

not too sure about the red writing on purple background mate, makes the text quite difficult to pick out and the colours seem a little "garish"... contrasting colours between text and background would be better imo....

the way I see it, these new cameras which tonemap and blend the images together in-camera are likely to be good for timesaving, but still won't offer the degree of control you can get by doing it yourself... it's effectively a bastardised evolution of the jpeg vs RAW argument - do you want the camera to do a few things to make it "look good" as soon as you upload to the computer (losing some of the image information along the way), or do you want all the detail you were able to capture, to do with at your own leisure and as you please..?

personally I'm pretty sick of seeing overdone hdr work, especially when it comes to the haloing often created by tonemapping, and the colour casts it sometimes introduces... in terms of getting a realistic, high quality image with an equivalent dynamic range to a tonemapped hdr image, I can't see that anything can be better than manually blending the exposures yourself in photoshop using layer masks and exercising a good degree of patience... for those images that are worth it, well... it's worth it!

I see hdr as doing kind of the same thing as a jpeg - make an image look good quickly and chuck away the rest of the irrelevant exposure information.... you'd still need to set up on a tripod if the exposures are to be accurately merged and blended anyway, so why having gone to that effort would you not want to have full control over the output? maybe it's just me but then I ALWAYS shoot in raw, and take great care with my conversions and processing... I can understand others might differ in this view.... bottom line, hdr and its incorporation into newest cameras = convenience, and also partly marketing hype ;) just my 2p

congrats!

welcome news.. congrats Carin!

perhaps time to update your flash player to a newer version Tom? worth a look if your internet connection's up to speed ;)