Ypu are right of course, Neil, and Chris too, it's so easy with software to tweak a photograph that perhaps sometimes it is done when it isn't neccessary, or desirable. It can also lead to one looking at a photograph and automatically thinking "Need's a levels tweak", or "I'd give it a curves adjustment", without really looking at the photograph and what it's portraying. This picture is probably a case in point, I thought the scene looked a bit flat, so as Davex invited us to play with it, I went straight for giving it more impact, without really considering what it might actually look like in reality. That being said, I think I'd still tweak it were it my picture...

I also like Sanppychappys version, looks like Mordor, as Polchraine pointed out.

I recently bought a Tokina80-400 which I thought came with a tripod mounting ring, but it didn't. Perhaps its only the Mk II that has it. The lens is a bit heavy to be supported by the camera tripod mount on my fairly light tripod. It tends to droop.

Does anyone have any idea where I might find one? Also, I am thinking of getting a 2x converter, and wondering which would work best with this lens, or is it a stupid idea? I saw some Bower ones in New York, which seemed to work with my Sigma 10-20, but it does not get very good reviews, especially for its autofocus capabilities. One shark in a camera shop on 5th Avenue tried to sell me one for $400, an incredibly brazen piece of attempted rip-off artistry since they go for about $75!! I won't be going there again!

Rgds,
Jon

Very interesting comments by Neil and I can see where he is coming from. It is something I actually considered when I went to Ascnsion Island, another volcanic landscape. In the end I decided I wanted images with more impact than they had sttraight out of the camera, so I adjusted levels, contrast and sometiimes saturatioon to get the images lookking more interesting than the drab grey that makes up much of the island.

It brings up the question whether photgraphy is about faiithfully recording something or making a pleasing image? If the former, then where do mono image fit in?

I would however say that Dr Orloffs reasoon for preferring the original is perfectly valid, even though in some ways it amounts to much the same thing: the difference being he is not assessing the image from actual knowledge of the subject matter.

Or a couple of thousand quid

I love The Station, but I can't make up my mind whether I would prefer the grass cropped out or not. With The Square I think the building on the left being decapitated spoils it a bit.

Nice pic! I made pretty much the same adjustments, adjusting levels in the sky and seperately for the foreground. A slight curves adjustment overall too, and I cropped a bit off the bottom:

Welcome!

I like the 1st and 3rd ones too, as they are a bit different to the normal shots of this very photographed landmark.

I'd love to know what someone without a good grasp of English would make of that?

A good day indeed! Except I see you have 26 photos on ppg...I love Paupers Row and Power Play by the way.