Hi all,

This is my first 'submission sequence' for review/ripping-apart since joining, so be gentle with me, please! All honest comments and constructive criticism gratefully received.


Undercarriage


Ditching! Runway is wet, wet, wet!


Bomber Flypast


Up, up and away!


Touchdown!


I see your point...




I took these this afternoon, and have done very little to them before uploading them here. I used Photoshop CS4 to crop some of them a bit, keeping the same frame proportions. In one case, I rotated the frame 90 degrees. In two others, I used an adjustment layer to lighten-up one f-stop. One of them (Bomber Flypast) is neither cropped nor adjusted, it's just resized to Flikr's maximum 1024 longest-side - apart from that, it's 'straight from the camera'.

With my trusty K-x, I was using the long end of my 55-300mm DAL ED lens, autofocus (single mode - and now that I think of it, that was a mistake - it should've been continuous), and shutter-priority mode in the 1/500 & 1/1000 settings, I think. The files should have their EXIFs intact, for those that want to get to the nitty-gritty (and please feel free).

I'm looking for pointers from the folks here who know better than me about these things - this is my first attempt at relatively high-speed panning, or 'action wildlife' genereally - so I'm especially looking for pointers about that - but anything else you can teach me is good too, frankly!

Let 'er rip...

Are there any rules on entrants voting for themselves? If everyone else is going to, then of course, I will too... but if all the other entrants are not voting for themselves (or at all) then I shan't either.

I mention this only because if some entrants do vote (whether for themselves or not) and other entrants don't vote at all - thinking that it's unsporting to do so (for themselves), then it sorta gets unfair.

I know the rules just said 'everyone can vote'... but all the same, I'm new here, and just wondered if there was, er, an 'unwritten rule', sorta thing...

It's similar, but not exactly the same, from what I can tell (bear in mind I don't own a K20D - I'm just going by the manual, here: http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/man-pdf/k20d.pdf p93,94 & 100 particularly).

There's a meter rather like the the one on the back of the K-x, up on the top-side LCD on the K20D. Unlike the K-x, the K20D's viewfinder readout is virtually the same as its LCD: a scale with a pointer, rather than the K-x's simple '+ or - number' readout.

But despite the differences, the methodology would be exactly the same: meter the subject roughly using the top-side LCD meter, tweak your exposure (SS/Ap/ISO) to get it near, then focus thru the finder, and make final adjustments to suit, using the finder's meter view. Job done, with a bit of luck!

Just to pick from where Glynn left off (if I may), I thought it might help to illustrate what I'd do in this situation.

My first step would be to put the K-x into Auto Exposure Bracketing mode, so that I'll have three shots 'in the can' for each go - and can then pick and choose the one I like best later . I'll assume you know how to do this, because it's not essential - just a convenience. Ask if you need info.

Ok - so now I'd go into Manual (M) mode, and the first thing I'd set in this situation (a static flower) is my desired aperture. Press the AV button up top, next to the green button (to select aperture on the e-dial), and then spin the e-dial round to, say, f5.6. In all honesty, looking at your shots above, and the depth of the bloom, maybe I'd dial up f8 or even f11, to get a bit more depth of field. But not too much, if you want that far-off background to stay blurred. Experiment (later)...

Now I'd sort out my first 'guess' at a shutter speed. Either press the AV button again (to put the e-dial back into shutter speed selection mode), or just wait a moment or two for it to revert to that mode automatically. Then dial up, say, 1/250th as a starting point.

I'd then point the camera (without looking through the viewfinder) roughly at the flower, and half-press the shutter, and let go again. This will kick the light-meter into life, and show something like this on the back LCD, in the box below the ISO readout:




This particular example shows that the light being read, for the aperture/shutter speed/ISO combination you're using, is about 1.3 f-stops underexposed, so you'd need a bit more light in. Spin the e-dial to slow the shutter down a stop or so. Alternatively (if you're, say, going handheld, and are already down to such a slow shutter-speed that'll cause camara-shake blur), you can open the aperture up a stop (i.e. a lower number). And if you're at the limits of shutter-speed and don't want to lose the depth of field you have from your selected aperture, then press the ISO button on the back of the camera, and select the next faster (higher-number) speed. Or get a tripod, of course!

Then repeat the metering process, and see whether you're nearer the centreline. If you see:




then the metering has switched off! It only meters for a short while, so half-press the shutter again and let go, to turn it back on. Eventually, you'll get somewhere near:




..which tells you that you're pretty much 'on the money'.

Now you can bring the camera up to your eye, and sort out the focus (whether you're using manual or auto focus, you'll be looking for that bleep and the steady green hexagon). You'll see something like this at the bottom of the viewfinder:




... which in this case tells me that I have (reading left-to-right):
- 1/250th selected as my shutter speed (and it's currently still the thing the e-dial will alter, if I spin it - that's what the underline means)
- F5.6 is my aperture
- I'm focussed
- I'm 2 f-stops OVER exposed!!

That's your double-check, in manual mode, that last bunch of numbers. It'll read either + or - a number of f-stops (or part f-stops). Ideally, you're aiming for 0.0, which means the meter thinks the exposure is perfect. It can still be fooled, though (if the subject is back-lit, or very reflective or white, for example) - which is why I still prefer to use the Auto Exposure Bracket mode to take three shots (one underexposed, one overexposed, one 'just right' - by the metere's standards, at least!).

But that's the basic drill, anyway. If you're finding that when you look through the viewfinder, you're still 'off' on the exposure, then as before, change the shutter speed or aperture (you can do that without taking your eye away from the viewfinder, with practice), or change the ISO (alas, in M mode, that's hidden, so you'll have to come back away from the viewfinder to do that, but it's less likely to be necessary than the other two options, really).

And that's it, really! Hope this helps a bit. Not trying to claim credit for the idea, but as Gwyn referred you to the manual, I thought I'd try and rustle up the key bits to save you having to look there. We all know how much we hate manuals, right?

Good luck, and let us see how you get on.

What firmware does your K-x have in it, Rob? To check the version number, turn your camera on while holding down the MENU button.
The version number will appear in the center of the LCD screen.

The original v1.00 firmware has issues with battery metering and gives false readings. It may even contribute to early shutdown, before a battery is truly depleted.

The new v1.01 firmware apparently addresses this, and is available on the Pentax site here:

http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/digital/k-x_s.html

I updated my firmware the day I bought my camera, so I've never experienced the old regime - but even now, I'm still conscious that some batteries seem to work better than others, and that the battery meter can under-read (I recently spent an entire day running on 'red mode' and the camera didn't flake out at all!). I've also never used the video recording mode yet, either.

However, it's recommended to update the firmware, all the same.

To cover my own backside (in case you brick your K-x), please note:

If you do decide to update the firmware, it is ESSENTIAL that you have a set of FULL batteries in the camera to begin with, proven by a green meter indicator. And make sure you download the correct firmware (Mac or Windows/PC). You'll also need a blank SD card for a couple of minutes.

It's possible that with the new firmware, your video crash problem might disappear, if it IS battery meter-related. If not, it won't matter; you won't have invalidated any warranty if you completed the update steps correctly, and should still be able to take it back to the shop.

Good luck, and please keep us updated on how you get on.

Gosh... that takes me back, Flossie. I haven't seen a good grammar/spelling flame since, oooh, my days at Future Publishing, probably. I thought it was illegal these days; up there with Godwin's Law, and similar internet flamewarcrimes.

Besides, I am reliably informed by the DTI (now known as BIS: the Office of B***sh**, Ignorance and Stupidity), that there are no longer any grocers left in the UK these days, and if there were, none could afford a blackboard anyway.

Henceforth, the term for the aforementioned spelling crime is a Morrisons' Apostrophe but the debate that ensues over the correct positioning of our friend the flying comma has resulted in serious injury in some counties already...

Still, since you raised the whole 'spelling flame' subject, and I can't resist... how come you didn't notice this little double-bagger, from our esteemed Editor/Publisher, no less?

Or did you notice, but just not want to stick your neck out that far?

/looks at shoes, discreetly steps sideways out of the room/

Sorry Chris - clumsy wording on my part.

I guess what I meant to imply was that I'm maybe coming round to agree with you (and others) that the ear highlight is perhaps a weeny bit overbright. It was meant as a 'jokey aside' ~ a way of saying "like wot Chris suggested", rather than literally meaning anything done 'to keep you happy' or really for your 'sake', as such.

For what it's worth, from my POV, the opinions I've seen you give hitherto have been top notch.

And likewise, mine own opinions are worth precisely the paper they're printed on, and no more!

Here you go - here's the Guiness face I was talking about ~ from the campaign called (I think) Surfer, by Jonathan Glazer




In my humble opinion, either of Shane's is actually better (though I *still* prefer his first). Okay, so Glazer's offering is a movie, and a therefore lot harder to retouch and stay consistent, but I still prefer Shane's, excuses or no. It's way more dramatic than I first imagined (in comparison to Glazer's), and the subject has a kind of 'Russell Crowe-meets-CatWeasel' look about him, and isn't quite as old-looking (yet still suitably wizened) as the Guinness bloke.

I'd say go back to the first cut, maybe (for Chris's sake) dim those highlights on the ear and temple *just a smidge* - but not too much, and sort out that collarbone and the eye-whites as you did on the second cut, and I think you'd be finished, personally.

I'm probably going to annoy the bejeezers out of you, and the other commentators... but I preferred the first shot, of these two.

I have no problem with the HDR 'overprocessing' of the first one - indeed, I think it is right up there with the Guinness ad campaign style, and works well - highlights an' all. In my head, I can hear that drumming of the 'and then he waits' advert, with the white horses, etc.

I can see what Chris means about the left-hand side ear, but if that's really the way it is, then there's nowt to do but live with it. For me, it's only become a distraction since Chris drew attention to it - but that's the nature of commentary, isn't it?

I prefer the way the original image emphasises (perhaps even over-emphasises) the frown lines and other skin textures and the hair - much more strongly than the second image. It has a sort of 'low-key' brightness about it that is quite hard to explain... but its darkness IS its feature; its angle; its game. Prominent darkness is the phrase which comes to mind. The more 'average' tones of the second image means it loses these key points; the skin textures, whilst more evident overall, lose their accentuation in the second image. It's as if it *needs* the darkness to make them stand out - and the first shot does this way better, for me.

My only dislike about both photos, is the treatment of the subject's shoulders/collar bone, on the right hand side of the frame. The second image here is, for me, better than the first - but only because the first's treatment of this area is a bit 'colour-washed'. By that I mean there's an almost posterised/solarised effect to the collar bone there, with a block of almost solid single tone, which to me just doen't look right. Needs a bit more gaussian blur or something to break it up a little, but still keep it defocussed.

The only other thing I would perhaps change (and I notice you've done this in the second image) is bringing out the whiteness of the eye in the left of the frame. The top shot needs that cheat, I think, to make the eyes more piercing through the darkness - and balanced. They're both just right in the second image, but the contrast with the face is less, because its less dark overall.

The only other thing I would say is that I have no clue what I'm talking about, probably - and I'm sure Chris and Pauly would both agree with that statement! I should point out that I have already been stunned today by the observational skills that Chris has, demonstrated in a critique he did on Pauly's 'Cross' image elsewhere - and I've also been equally stunned by some of Pauly's work (that I looked at, because of Chris's comments). I therefore take my hat off to the pair of them, and hope I can rise to their levels in due course...

...but I still had to say what *I* felt about the images, so, for what it's worth, there you have it! That top image would not, in my opinion, look out of place in the pages of Time Life magazine (and is as good if not better than many I have in a book of that esteemed publication).

Keep it up!

Number one for me too. Crackin' pic. Got it all:

- movement of the subject itself, with just the teensiest bit of blur on the foot for emphasis, while the rest of the subject is pin-sharp.

- natural yet unusual action, the beak-full of nest-materials makes the shot interesting, out-of-the-ordinary, yet wholly 'real' without seeming staged.

- composition is good - there's space for the bird to walk into, which again heightens the movement aspect. Leadline/horizon being tilted like that, draws the eye into where the bird has been, which is interesting, if a tad unorthodox (but I like unorthodox!)

- beautifully vibrant colours, good contrast - the oranges and greens work well together, and of course the blacks and whites make a natural complementary pair. Very bright

- background is nicely defocused, yet not so much that the leaves on the ground are completely obscured. It's easy to link the leaves in the bird's beak with the leaves around him - both in terms of shape and colour.

- subtle air of 'mystery' - the bird's eye-line indicates he's heading for something - perhaps his nest - just out of shot to the right. Adds to the tension, emphasises the movement yet further, and begs the question in the viewer's mind "I wonder what his nest looks like?"

Great shot.