BlenheimBoy

Through my work, I visit a lot of homes in the hills and southern Fleurieu region. I'll keep my eyes open. Lets hope the little guy finds his family and is safe and well until then. His owners must be heart broken, I know I would be. Michael

+1 Here's one we had on a window at work a few months back: Over a 12 hour period, she hoisted this poor lil guy up over 1 metre - from on a window sill (where she must have caught him), to up under the (outside) blind hood. Normal Victoria... lol, that's funny.

That's a classic

One from a while ago... Dancing with the other lady in my life, the beautiful Renae

For an adult with no skills, maybe. I say aim high and be prepared to negotiate down. They are obviously aware of your talent and want you on board. But a few things, what guarantee is there that 'full time' is actually full time? How would it be perceived if you were to take on your own clients in your own time if your 'employed' work slows down? Might it be better to be a contractor rather than an employee?

Persephone, Orton won't suit all subjects. I've found it most effective on images filled with fine detail - things like animal fur, grasses, leaves - images with lots of repetitive lines or textures. Especially where those 'lines & textures' do not form part of the image's primary focus. (such as the background) There's a recent dol thread here: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=175514 As with any post process effect, you can turn it up as loud (or not) as best suits the particular image. Here's a few shots my wife has taken, with a fairly mild Orton applied Giraffe (on dol) - (on Flickr) Mothers Day Cav (on dol) - (on Flickr)

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...=152772&hl=

That's why I asked for a *crop* at 100% - not the *entire* full res shot. ETA: example:

Jenny, would you post a 100% crop from one of these shots please. Resizing to 350px long (as you've done) shows me nothing of the cameras low noise performance.

This actually makes me laugh... she's using a consumer camera and a cheap'ish consumer lens to shoot a wedding - and she's dis'ing your lens? all I can say is PFT! You should have replied with "So you're shooting a wedding with *NO* back-up camera and a consumer lens... Gees!" and then walked off... ETA:

Looks great, I love the light on his ear. ...and besides... *everyone* knows there's no such thing as a bad photo of a Cavalier....

Congrats on the D50, they're a great little camera. In that particular instance, I'd add fill flash and decrease the exposure. Generally, I shoot this kind of stuff in aperture priority with my flash (SB600) in iTTL and use an appropriate level of flash compensation to lift the shadows. I always found the D50 to be a little prone to hot spotting. I know a lot of people had their exposure comp permanently set to -0.3 or -0.7 in an attempt to avoid blow outs. I tried that too but didn't really like the results. These days I shoot with a Fuji S5 set to 400% dynamic range and the whole white/overexposed thing is not usually an issue and the difference is **very** noticeable in comparison to the Nikon sensors. Hope that's of some help. Michael

Try this one - there always seems to be helpful friendly people there... or: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/ http://www.photoforum.com.au/index.php also, Flickr has 'groups' that cover just about everything - might be something there. Michael

- following on from my previous comment - Here's a link to the Virgin Mobile advert I referred to: http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/ The photograph was uploaded to Flickr with a CC (Creative Commons) licence. (which makes it fair game, but V still should have had a model release) Link to SMH story It really is just a 'snap-shot' type of photo, which highlights the fact that a photo need not be of outstanding quality or content for it to be ripped off. Regards, Michael

Jules and I have both been through varying degrees of this (Copyright infringement) I came across this browser plug-in few weeks back. (and immediately found more of our images used without permission) It's def worth having - even if only for curiosity value. http://tineye.com/plugin Here's some more examples of unauthorised use (from Flickr): A photograph I took (Bollywood producer & actor) ...and this is what happened after uploading to Flickr: it turned up : here, here here here here here and here oh someone else pinched it and put it on imageshack as well... Some of you might know about the problems my wife (JulesLuvsCavs) had with a photo of our Joey, she removed it from Flickr in the end. Well, it's still out there (other than as my avatar...) Another of my shots 5th one down is mine. It's also here Here's my original There was also a case a while back, where an image (of a girl texting) sourced from Flickr was used in an advert for a mobile phone carrier (V) The ad was 'featured' on the side of a bus shelter (in Adelaide). No photographer consent, no model release and no payment for it's use. As I understand it, it was the girls family who saw the ad and it was subsequently removed... sorry I can't find the link/info on it atm. Regards, Michael