Peter Sharpe

So you've never been to Northampton then?

I gave mine away. The person who I gave it to sent it straight back and bought one that actually works properly.

I remember listening to a programme on the radio about him in the match fishing world cup, where it said he had balls the size of oranges.

Service Pack 3 stubborly refused to install on my PC and in attempting to do so it created all kinds of other problems. It knocked out my TV card and it took me ages to get it working again. I will happily manage without it.

It was my fault - I forgot I had been experimenting with a microphone. Sorted

That's exactly what I thought, but the clever bar stewards have certainly found a way to disable Audio Recorder For Free Even so, it was nice to hear Futurama again by Be-bop Deluxe.

Is it called Service Pack 3?

I think I must have been only seven or eight years old when I figured out that the very concept of God was so mind-numbingly ridiculous that I dismissed it at a stroke. Life suddenly became so much less complicated.

Hi Steve, any photos that I have worked on will remain as Tifs when they get put on the server for the designer. If they are good enough in the first place, any unaltered ones will remain as jpgs. For some reason that I have never been able to understand, the designer converts them all to eps format before creating the page PDF. I think this comment from one of the links is the most in line with my own thoughts: " It looks like you’ve come to the same conclusion I have recently, RAW isn’t THAT much better than JPEG. And they’re usually not worth the effort and storage unless you’re trying to print very big with close viewing or going to crop tremendously. I just came back from a week’s vacation where I shot most everything in RAW+JPEG (Panasonic FZ30 always creates JPEG when you choose RAW) and didn’t find the RAW were any better than the JPEGs. Additionally, the JPEGs used the white balance that’d I’d selected, giving it the color tone I wanted in each shot, rather than the RAW that applied white balance afterwards (and was often skewed from what I wanted). So it’s JPEGs for me from now on unless I’m planning major cropping or REALLY big prints that folks are going to get close to." I will certainly do a bit of experimenting, but I think that for the vast majority of publishing scenarios, a high quality jpg will be just fine. I have to say that I have sometimes been surprised by how well some of the photos I receive look on the printed page, when I had thought they were quite borderline in quality. I suppose I am influenced by the fact that I sometimes take around 200 photos for a single feature, so that using RAW would be simply too time consuming and would also gobble up SD cards like crazy. There is also the fact that I often work to a timescale that means that photos often need to be sent either by FTP or even email, so RAW really wouldn't be an option (they would take forever to upload). There is also a possibility that somebody might spend a lot of time altering the tones. etc, but not working on a calibrated screen and might not also be working to the required printer settings. I also work blind in this respect, but I know from experience what tends to look about right and at least I haven't wasted too much of my time over it. If you have a fantastically expensive camera and know that you are taking a photo that might be blown up and exhibited, then I'm sure there is no possible argument for not using RAW. It's merely that I don't want people to read this topic and think that RAW is essential for professional use. Probably worth taking the effort if you are commissioned to produce a very special single image, but not necessary for most magazine work.

Surely, with that 4mp jpg, you haven't thrown away 6mp of information, because although the stored file will appear as 4mb, as soon as you open it, it will once again show as a 10mb photo. I feel convinced that many people are taking photos in RAW, then simply using a program to open them that that instantly converts them to jpg format - in effect, merely doing on their computers what the camera would have done if they shot in jpg mode. Somebody mentioned that with RAW files, you could rescue "burn outs". Surely that isn't correct; if the photo was over exposed, there is nothing that you can do to repair information that was corrupted at source. If it can do that, then you might as well ignore any camera setttings apart from aperture for depth of field, then simply correct it afterwards. Mind you, I have yet to see a noticeable difference in quality between a jpg file converted from RAW and a jpg obtained as the result of using the correct camera settings in the first place. I always select the best jpgs for printing and convert them to Tif format before doing any tweaking to conform with my personal preferences. Sometimes though, if the jpg is originally 20mb or more, I wont bother to convert it if it just needs a very simple adjustment. You really can't tell any difference at all.

I just wondered what has caused all those rectangles, as they suddenly appeared when I upped the Clarify effect to silly levels.

Okay, but it wasn't possible, due to the fact that the sky has been added in from a completely separate image. I deliberately overdid the Clarify effect and you can see that it reveals quite a bit of other work in the sky. The main body of the picture looked almost identical before I "over-egged" it.

The trick is to use those big ones, about two inches long.

Where is it then? I like a bit of fossil hunting

It does look quite bite shaped. Could it possibly be caused by mink or otters? I don't think an otter would have missed it though.

Any way you like, as long as you don't use that utterly poncey way beloved by anglers on telly, who inexplicably support the rod a foot or so above the butt with two fingers.

Ah, but you could argue that if he hadn't had to lug all that heavy equipment around with him, he might have got that shot very much sooner. Also, having the ability to take perhaps up to 500 photos on a single SD card must surely encourage you to be more adventurous. After all, it is the end result that that you are striving for. I don't really see how producing a photo after countless hours of frustration, pain and suffering (or even great pleasure) makes it more worthy in some way. If I saw a truly remarkable photograph that was the result of a raw beginner just happening to get incredibly lucky - it's still a remarkable photograph.

Put them in the fridge in a wet bait tub. Remember to take the top off though or they might sweat.

I think a monk must be a component of camp sheathing - and I've no idea what that is either.

Amen.

I don't follow that reasoning at all, it's just that the artistic side takes place in a different medium. I send photographs to designers every day of the week and I always send them in RGB. They would actually get annoyed if I converted them beforehand, saying that it was their job to do it.

I'm afraid I can't work out what on earth this is all about, as it says 100% positive feedback. All the same, from the description given, it is as clear as daylight that you are paying for 45 rigs.

I had an old "Fishy Tales" website that had been online since about 2002, created with Freeserve's Sitebuilder program. It remained available, throught the most recent transition to Orange, but then I found it had disappeared altogether. I don't know if Orange attempted to notify users, but as I had changed my email address several times, I can hardly blame them. I don't think there was ever a backup facility and at that time I probably wouldn't have known how to use it anyway. However, all is not lost, as I came across this website, that has archived masses of old web pages http://www.archive.org/web/web.php I wasn't able to see any of the photographs, but at least I was able to retrive some of the text. I just thought there was bound to be somebody else in the same situation, so I thought I would share it.