Just to let you know, there's a 300 4.5 on ebay at the moment:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pentax-300mm-IF-ED-f4-5-Used-SMC-Pentax-FA-Lens_W0QQitemZ7622659676QQcategoryZ48558QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

in case anyone has a hankering for one.

Dan

I always (like I 'always' use a tripod!) use a spirit level mounted in the hot-shoe. I've lost count of the pictures I've seen with wonky horizons, especially lakes, and it drives me up the wall, it's such an easy thing to avoid. I'll agree with John, if there's not an obvious horizon in view, somethimes a non-level shot looks better, but where water's involved, I'd always use the level.

There's a shot by Charlie Waite, taken in France I think, of a load of trees stood in water, with a beautiful reflection of the trunks (in fact trunks is all you can see). It's a wonderfully observed image. He's lined the actual trunks up so they're vertical, but the reflected trunks are then at an angle. To me it spoils the shot. Perhaps I'll spend £7.99 and send him a spirit level

Dan

I've got a Minolta ScanElite 5400 gathering dust beside my monitor - strangely enough it hasn't had much use since getting my D. Certainly gave me good scans, high resolution seemed to suit Velvia, but scan time was a little slow.

Thinking of ebaying it, but not sure - for the same reason I've still got all my film SLRs - you never know when you might need it.

Dan

Hi Niblue,

Yes, Cokin filter, in the first, non-polariser, slot. I'll have to remember to shade it better in future. I was keeping the direct sunlight off, but obviously there was enough ambient light, bearing in mind the long exposure, for this to show.

Perhaps I'll have to get some black velvet to drape over me, I'll look like a proper photographer then.

Dan

Actually, I remembered as I walked down the road, the Corn was 3 years ago, this year it's Rape. Not so photogenic.

So I wandered into my local park, and had a mooch about. Best of a bad bunch below:




What I did try when converting my RAWs (in Pentax Photo Lab) was fiddling with the white balance (handy if the red channel's blown out a bit), but then I tried picking a grey point, which darkened the whole image down (cut the red right back), and then increasing the sensitivity by the full extent. This gave this image:




Boosting the levels in photoshop rather than using the sensitivity gave this:




Normal IR processing gave this (not a huge difference from a polarised shot IMO, although grass is lighter):




What intrigues me about the 'colour' ones are the funny shapes around the centre and top of the image. Not sure what caused these. Reflection of lens from back of filter? Any ideas? Other than that, I quite like the surreal look of these ones, although banding is apparent on them because of the boosting of the sensitivity.

Any comments, of course, gratefully received.

Dan

Hi Niblue,

So the squiggle is the noise reduction, applied to the whole image. I see. It does look like swirling leaves.

I know what you mean about the grain looking heavy handed, I think it was done on the lowest or second from lowest setting, but obviously on an image of this size, it's going to be more prominent than on a higher res one.

I think there is a danger in trying to make digital images look like film ones, or at least trying to do that with all your B+W ones. I do like the smoothness of digital images, the lack of grain.

Why did I put it in then? Oh yes, to please John

Now the sun's out, and I've got fluffy white clouds, there's an Oak tree in a cornfield down the road. I'm off!

Dan

Fair do's then. Nicely done with the noise reduction

Anyway, enough typing, I should actually take some pictures today. If I get anything decent for this thread, I'll pop it up later.

Dan

Aah, the old 'squiggle' filter! What is that, 'plastic wrap'? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick entirely? Interesting effect, none the less.

It made me smile - there was I adding grain, when you were pleased that Matt had removed it. I was guessing that was more down to the jpeg artifacts than from deliberate noise reduction, but we'd have to ask Matt that.

You're right about the different processing, but it also shows how different people perceive an image to be 'right'. Matt obviously felt that his take on this image was 'right', but I would have thought I'd overcooked it, hence my more subtle approach. But the noise for you is an issue, whereas for me it helps - horses for courses, as they say.

Frankly wouldn't want it any other way, either.

Dan

Dare I say it???

I found Matt's alterations a little over-powering for my own tastes! There, I've said it! Sorry Matt!!

Anyway, as I can't just say that and not put up my own effort, here it is. Hope you don't mind Ammonyte, but it was nice to have a play with someone elses image for a change.




I've added some highlight glow and grain, to try and keep one of the moderators happy, at least.

It's inspired me, I'll pop out in a while with my own filter and D.

Cheers,
Dan

These always look a bit Heath Robinson to me, especially the lead plugging into the remote socket, although that one looks to be better than some I've seen.

But surely, surely, it's something Pentax should produce.

Dan