It may just come back to haunt him now and again...

Dan

Does look nice in mono too, though I'm sure you've already tried that. With a bit of warm toning...

Dan

Lovely sky, and the beach/windbreak area had a olde worlde look about it. I much prefer this sort of HDR, where the colours look more muted, than the more lurid kind.

Thought it was going to be mono when I first saw the top of the pic. Is it my imagination, or does the sand in the middle look a bit 'swirly'? Makes my eyes go a bit funny.

With such a straight horizon, I would have been tempted to just use the best exposure for the beach, and the best for the sky, and just splice them together.

Dan

Chris,

Apart from the overall look of it, which could have been from the HDR process, where I often feel as though the sky's been pasted on, I was a bit unsure of the light source - the lighting on the clouds doesn't seem to match with the light on the building (direction-wise, although the flash may contribute to this).

But the dead giveaways were:




1. This looks like sky and cloud showing through the staircase, so this must have been pasted on.

2. There looks to be cloud missing from here, so perhaps some blue sky painted over this bit.

3. Although there may well be a bit of the railing missing here, it looks a bit too woolly to me, the edges should be crisper.


The pasting in of a sky (or any major element of a picture, such as, oh I don't know, a grassy bank seen through a railway carriage window :lol is fraught with danger, there are so many areas to consider to make it look natural. Specifically with pasting in skies, to look correct you need to ensure that the same focal length is used, at the same angle to the sun, and at the same angle to the horizon. Depends how precise you want to be about it, but that's my take on it.

Invariably something gets overlooked, and if it hasn't, it's taken far longer to create than it ever would by getting it right at the time of taking.

Obviously, conditions don't always allow for the shot you want to be taken when you're there. I'm much better now at just leaving that idea, and looking for something I can capture.

A few years back I was asked to photograph some visitor centres, and although the sun was out when I started off (at one end of Essex), by the time I'd reached the last one, the sky was just a washed out grey. I photoshopped it, but afterwards I realised I'd left a telltale sign - the sky through the windows in the 'tower' is lighter than the actual sky. But apart from that, the lighting on the building just doesn't fit with the blue sky, it's just too flat.




In that case it was a 'needs must' thing, and I'm sure it's fine for most people, but I know it's wrong and I avoid it wherever possible. And it took so long to do too.

Dan

Or the judging could be passed onto the second placed contestant.

Dan

Sounds very odd. Lenses sound as if they're okay from your aperture checks.

The only thing I can see that might be the cause is the extra little arm bit on the actuator of the 90mm. This is showing some wear, so would imply that it's being touched by the mount. The other lenses don't have this bit, so is this the bit of the actuator that's actually being moved?

Perhaps your mount needs adjusting slightly, so the bit that moves the actuator is moved further out towards the edge? Perhaps you could photograph the inside of the mount, to show what bit pushes the actuator in the lens.

Here's what I mean about wear on the 90mm:




Dan

I'm obviously in a minority here...

To me, the sky looks as though it's been pasted in from a nother pic, and there's horrible colour fringing around the roof and orinwork against the sky. HDRs like this really do nothing for me, they just look flat (lacking contrast) but lurid at the same time.

But as I say, I'm in the minority Richard.

Actually, is the sky from a different pic? It looks as though clouds, and bits of railing, are missing. Didn't notice at the smaller sizes...

Dan

I'm trying to remember the best way of fitting the mount - I don't have an AD2 lens anymore. I do recall sometimes getting the lugs on the side to match up with the corresponding notches on the lens could be a problem, usually sorted by either opening the aperture up to maximum or closing to minimum before trying to fit the mount, I can't remember which now though.

When you say you're having trouble mounting it, I'm not sure how you mean, so I'm now going to talk to you like you know nothing!

Have you properly lined up the green dots on mount and lens?

Have you properly lined up the lugs on the outside of the mount to the notches on the lens?

Does the aperture close down when you press in the actuator on the lens? (Without the mount fitted).

Dan

If you're mounting it in exactly the same way as you are on the 90mm, then I would say it must be a faulty aperture on the 70-210. Check the two lenses together, without a mount on, are there any differences in the look, and feel, of the aperture actuator?

Dan

Don't forget also that if you're being paid through Paypal, they'll take a cut of the total amount paid to you, which includes (AFAIK) the P&P. I made the mistake once of only adding on about 50p to the actual postage costs for a fairly heavy item, which sold for 99p. After the ebay and Paypal fees, I actually lost money.

Dan