Not particularly, especially in comparison with most HDR images I see, but it has a certain look about it that wouldn't be there with an image processed from a single original. I do prefer single processed shots, but that's just a personal opinion, there's nothing wrong with your HDR shot.

Regards
David

Not sure if you had any filters with you Nigel, but my thoughts are that the scene would be much better shot with a ND Grad 0.6 or 0.9 strength and processed as a single image, avoiding both blown highlights and the slightly unnatural effect that HDR brings with it. I think my ND Grads are the single most important item I have for landscape photography and they are not ridiculously expensive at around £60 for a set of 3 quality Hitech 85mm ones.

Regards
David

Very good Alistair, the guy with the hair is my favourite, it seems to sit more comfortably within the frame than the other ones do and is quite a soulful image.

Regards
David

Both are beautifully done and work very well in landscape format.

Regards
David

I've just acquired a Sigma 17-70 and am very impressed with it. For a zoom it is ultra-sharp and silent focussing too. The Pentax 17-70 is also very good, slightly slower, but a constant F4 rather than variable. The two are quite different in character, not sure which I prefer, but I will be offloading one soon as I can't justify keeping two 17-70 lenses.

I think the Pentax has slightly better contrast / colour rendering, whilst the Sigma probably just edges it for sharpness. The Sigma is cheaper.

Regards
David

I sort of agree with Alan (Blythman) on these. 7, 9 and 12 are my favourites, not due to processing techniques but because they are better composed and lead the eye more effectively than the others.

They are all sharp, decently exposed, decent colours, but I just can't get too excited by them I am afraid! I don't think the location helped, but there are probably some more creative and different shots available there - Smeggy makes a good point about this.

Regards
David

Hi John, I did take the point and indeed I referred to the fact that we should all take sensible precautions, whether we fly with Pentax batteries or other makes. I was pointing out that the humour was tongue in cheek and also that some of the previous comments were actually more silly than the humorous ones.

Regards
David

I agree with Smeggy's observation on this one, it does look as though the DA*300 shot is a tiny bit back-focussed. Look on the right of the fairy bottle, at the marks on the plastic of the bottle. These are definitely sharper in the first image and if this was focussed 100% I think it would be at least as good as the TC shot. The Sigma is the softest of the three, but still pretty good.

Regardless of the relative sharpness of all three images, this is still an impressive showing for the TC.

Regards
David

Humour doesn't hurt at all and this should really be taken in the spirit it was intended, i.e. tongue in cheek. If the humour is unhelpful, so is all the scaremongering about non genuine batteries and I have to say also that Gwen's post suggesting that Li-ion batteries could have contributed to the Malaysian air disappearance almost made me fall off the sofa!! I suppose the batteries could not only have switched off the plane's communications, but could also have made it change course and fly in the opposite direction

I don't know of any proven cases of third party batteries causing personal injury, I'm referring here not to fake batteries but third party ones properly made to fit with the same specifications. No doubt someone might be able to find reports of problems, but I would bet that the same problems could also exist with Pentax batteries. We should all take sensible precautions, whatever batteries we use and this is probably more important than the maker's mark.

Regards
David

Lovely images Dr O, especially the second one which has a nice diffused background and of course the rusty bike!

I wish I had more time to focus on wildlife photography, maybe when I retire

Regards
David