There was a time when some cameras (like the Fuji FinePix S7000) used in-camera interpolation to boost the megapixels (from 6 to 12 in that case, I believe)

Are there any manufacturers who still use this trick to make their cameras look more impressive than they really are?

The reason I ask is because I'm writing an article of advice for camera buyers and I want to know if this is still a feature to be avoided, or if it's not worth mentioning because manufacturers have abandoned it. I can't find any cameras claiming to do it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any.

... and when I go to the image itself, it doesn't show it as being in the lightbox either.

It's already in one lightbox 'Therapeutic images', and that shows. But not 'Healthy Foods'

Curious.

I guess it's a bug somewhere

Funny ... one of mine seems to have gone missing ...

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=2128298

Could you replace it when you have a moment.

Thanks.

then open the image up in curves and click 'auto' (which makes the contrast very high)... and look at all the black dots (this is dust)

But, the thing is, doing that shows up everything.

I'd guess even a camera fresh out of its box will show dust specks using that test.

I haven't noticed anything in my camera yet, and I wonder if I'm blind to it.  It's a Canon 400D, but I don't expect its auto cleaning thing to be so perfect.  What would be the best test to do, like shooting a plain color surface or whatever. 

Regards,
Adelaide

My advice would be to ignore the dust unless you can see it on your normal images (and you seem to be okay Adelaide). Then deal with it by blowing with a blower/brushing with a static-charged brush.

Of course, take sensible precautions whilst changing lenses (camera switched off, pointing down, in a non-dusty environment, quick lens change). But the dust question can get blown out of proportion.

Not so long a go I saw a photographer with some weird little changing bag. It looked like something for handling radioactive waste. He changed his lenses by putting camera and new lens into the bag, zipped it all up, slipped his hands into glove-shaped pockets at the sides of the bag, changed the lens and then unzipped it and took the whole lot out again.

Now that's seriously paranoid.

I don't think it would make any business sense for them to favour 'people' over 'images'.

After all ... they're in the business of selling 'images' not 'people'.

Are we including Alamy earnings in this? It was a good month for me there.

I have a Nikon 70-300. Barely all my pictures taken whit this lens are refused for mostly chromatic aberrations and blurry shot. That because of the poor quality of this lens.

Which Nikon 70-300 do you have?

The 'a', 'at', 'for', 'in', 'of' and 'up' (that have obviously been split from their phrases) probably set alarm bells ringing. Any maybe 'pewter' and 'silver' (especially since you haven't got 'grey' or 'gray').

Then what about 'german' and 'high'? I can see where you're coming from with these. But with the brand name removed, what's gGerman about this picture? And with 'high' separated from 'performance' (I guess) what's 'high' about it.?

Yeah ... I wouldn't be surprised. There's probably a group out there somewhere, members competing to see how many worst images of the day they can get   

I know what it is, and it's nothing to do with right/left brain.

In the article it says that most people see her going anticlockwise. But most people I've shown it to, and on this forum, see her going clockwise at first.

But, consider that this is an Aussie paper and it suddenly becomes clear.

People in the southern hemisphere see her going anticlockwise, and people in the northern hemisphere see her going clockwise.

It's exactly the same as the way water rotates as it goes down the plughole, innit?

                                                 

Can anyone see her actually moving counter-clockwise?

Yes, I've now seen her going anticlockwise. It took a while, but suddenly she switched and I couldn't get her to go back to the way I first saw her.

I found it helps switch direction if you cover up the shadow/reflection of her feet.

As for the right/left brain thing ... I'm suspicious of that. I showed it to my wife (who is a very much more organised and process-oriented person than me) and she saw it going clockwise too. I think most people see it going clockwise because of the shadow/reflection of one of her feet that appears and disappears. It makes more sense for that to happen when she's going clockwise.

Looks good, but a pity about the second image overlaying the first on the opening page. I would have thought it would have been better to change the images regularly, as some sites do. As it is the viewer is left looking at half an image with another, apparently unrelated on on top.

Also, I notice that Judge Ross (bless his cotton socks) only seems to be accessible when you've logged on. I must admit, although I don't always agree with his judgements, the images he shows are entertaining. Especially the worst of the day. It amazes me what some people submit.