Blea Tarn

A lovely set of images. Makes me want to go back there and try again when the rain isn't blowing horizontally into the lens Thanks for sharing.

A marvellous set, Carl. I prefer the originals. Yes, it would have been nice to be there on a lovely sunny day but these show the reality of the British uplands at any time of the year. Unlike Nigel I love cloud shadows and moody skies. What I don't like is uniform washed-out, featureless white skies which are no good for photography.

I do envy you being able to reach these mountains for a day trip.

None of this can distract from the achievement of Carl's excellent shots, we all agree on that, and we seem to agree also on the special compositional quality of the last one.

Its good when images raise points of interest - it certainly adds to the number of replies and views, and thats always a good thing!

Skys contain a range of brightness 'levels' like anything else - highlights, midtones, shadows. The thing about an ND grad is that it works to reduce the levels of each equally - it does not distinguish between high, mids & lows - they all come down by the set amount, be that 2 or 3 stops depending on the filter. Moody cloud shadows would normally fall within the dynamic range of the surrounding scene ... it is really the highlights and sky midtones that are outside our available DR, and that need reducing with the filter.

Because we have no way to prevent the sky shadows coming down as well with the filter, we end up with very dark sky shadows (too dark IMO as you know). This I wonder if it has become accepted as a stylistic feature, added drama which was not really there ....

When I am saying to change the sky, it is not about the general brightness levels (midtones), nor even the highlights - it is just the shadows. What I am complaining about is not the darkness of the sky overall in relation to the ground - it is in fact the CONTRAST within the sky itself ... the relationship of the shadow levels to the mids and highs within the sky. So the remedy is not to raise the brightness of the sky, but to isolate the sky shadow tones and raise them closer to the nearby sky mids., thereby REDUCING CONTRAST within the sky area. This is what I believe will lead to a better, more natural result, without sacrificing the mood or drama within a nicely balanced cloudy sky.

Thanks everybody - I really appreciate you all taking the time to view my images and share your thoughts and wisdom.

In truth - I was very disappointed by the amount of effort I put in to getting there versus my output and my planned 4 mile trek was abandoned due to poor light.

I almost abandoned the few shots I did take but decided to instead see if I could salvage anything worth viewing. Glad I did now.

For what it's worth - I quite like the 4th shot - am disappointed by the 1st shot (in parts) and find the middle 2 'average'.

I had a much happier second half of the afternoon in the Keswick area and will share some of my Derwent water shots later

Thanks

Carl

I think you are making a massive assumption in what you've written above Nigel, that when we process our images taken with ND Grads that we don't pay attention to ensuring the highlights and mid tones in the sky are right. I am always careful to ensure highs stay high (without being blown out) and mids stay mid. Yes, skies will look darker but should be realistic. This is far preferable to blown out highlights and featureless skies.

Regards
David

No that's not at all what I've said ... It's about the shadow levels within the skies, which are pulled down too much by the grad, as a result of the photographer setting the highlights and mids nicely. I'm not saying anyone here doesn't think about their highs and mids ... Perhaps just that after the event when processing they may not consider the ' internal' levels balance within the skies, specifically the distance between the shadows and mids, which I believe needs to be reduced on this kind of moody sky.

This is why it's good to debate and show our images; we all have different views. The reality is that skies can contain massive contrast and dynamic ranges that the camera cannot capture without some assistance, so I don't agree that the contrast between the shadows and lighter areas should necessarily be reduced. In some cases it pays to enhance this contrast. Like all other aspects of photography and art it is about doing what is appropriate for a particular image and no two images are the same, even ones taken in the same location at similar times.

I can understand that you see some skies in some images as unrealistic but by the same token I often see things in your images that don't look realistic either, for example some of the colours and also some odd angles as was discussed recently. This doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong or vice-versa, it's just opinions!

Regards
David

I agree completely ... It's only by raising the ideas and differences in what we see in images that we share and gain new perspectives. In technical terms the main aim for us all should be to have full control at our fingertips, so that the technical and processing aspects can be made to reproduce the creative aspects of what we want the photo to show, whatever that may be.