Hi Bob, thanks for your observations. You are correct in the most part, but on the image in this particular thread there isn't a colour cast. I have purposefully altered the highlight colours and made them totally different to the RAW file as it is on the camera settings, whilst leaving the shadow colours unchanged; this isn't a colour cast, it is the result of deliberate manipulation in post processing. I do agree with you however on the first image, i.e. the one you have posted above.

I don't think there's any point in everyone harking back to the original post as we have done that one to death. The idea behind this one was different, i.e. to find out what people think about whether an image should look natural or not.

Regards
David

Hi Dave

There have been a few threads about the 55-300 and its dislike for filters, especially circular polarisers, but also UV filters. I have used mine extensively both with and without a UV filter and it performs far better without. I gave up trying with a polariser as it was impossible to focus the lens at all - every shot came out very fuzzy. I think this is fairly well documented for the 55-300.

With regard to TC's, I've also seen a fair few posts about poor performance with the 55-300, both for autofocus and IQ. I have never owned a Pentax TC, so I can't comment on this, but with my 2x 7 element (Teleplus) converter that produces excellent results with primes, the IQ on the 55-300 is best described as indifferent and I don't consider it worthy of using with this lens. You may find different of course!

Regards
David

Hi and welcome, hope you like the site and the forum!

Regards
David

I had horrendous issues on my first K-x, but this was across all lenses so clearly the camera was at fault. This required a massive global adjustment of +140 in the debug menu. On my second K-x, my K-m and my K-5, no adjustments have been necessary.

Regards
David

Hi Will, I do agree with you that the other image looks very blue. However, the WB on the camera for that shot was the same setting used on the shot in this thread. The difference is they were shot at different times in the morning and the intensity of blue in the light on the other image was far greater when that was taken than it was when this one was taken. I can assure you that on the original RAW file straight from the camera there is a distinct blue tone and the shadows on the trees on the right are very blue. My processing has accentuated this whilst Nigel's has almost eradicated it. The result, whilst it may not look 'natural' to everyone, is that my image is a lot closer to how it really looked than Nigel's is. That's not to say it's better because clearly it's not, but it is truer to the scene. You can only take my word for that.

I've been a little mischievous in this thread because I knew that I had purposefully altered this image, but I also knew it could be believable because sometimes sunrises do produce pink / purple tones. I wasn't setting out to prove any points, I just wondered how people would react, especially given the recent heated debate on the other thread.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards
David

Good evening everyone, thanks for your input so far. The first thing I have to say is that the post has had the desired effect - i.e. it has sparked debate. The second thing is that I am even more convinced than I was before that everyone views images entirely from their own perspective - we are all like this and we can't help it! Therefore we get a massive range of views, observations and opinions, most of which cannot possibly be correct, but all of which are valid in the mind of the person making the comment / observation.

A few facts acout the image:

1. There is no colour cast whatsoever on this image from filters as there was no filter on the lens when it was taken

2. There is little or no colour distortion from white balance; it is as close to the actual WB my eye saw as possible

3. Despite the two points above it bears absolutely no resemblance to the colours I saw at the time because I have purposefully given it split toning and completely altered the highlight colours

In fact, referring back to the 'Processing Shootout' thread, my image in that thread which received a lot of comment for having a blue cast and being completely unnatural, is actually a lot closer to reality than this one is

I think the observations and thoughts so far have been really interesting - please keep them coming!

Best wishes
David

I'm really struggling to get my head around what you're saying here Sean. I think you might be over-analysing me a little?

I generally do only very basic processing on my images, I have no hang-ups about what type of processing anyone prefers and I am always eager to learn. On this particular post I was just interested to know what everyone thought about whether they thought the images looked natural and whether they had strong views about this?

I have noticed on your own images that some do seem to be quite heavily processed, maybe I am wrong but this seems to be the case?

Regards
David

I'm so glad we have someone on the forum who is careful to consider his words before making them public

God bless you sir, you have given me the biggest laugh I've had for a while on the forum!

Thanks for voting for my image too

Cheers
David

Dave, I've tried this and I can tell you from experience, forget it! The 55-300 absolutely hates TC's. It even hates filters (of any kind).

This lens is a stellar performer (for the money) but you have to use it 'naked'. For IQ I think it can produce images approaching those of a quality prime telephoto and beats most telephoto zooms, but for whatever reason it's not one to pair with any other glass.

Regards
David

Well, what a week it's been on the Forum, lots of heated discussions about processing images and all that stuff. In a way, I wish I hadn't entered into the challenge with Nigel on the processing front, but in another way I've really enjoyed seeing how hot under the collar everyone gets about a couple of simple images! I wonder what 'non-togs' would think about such forum threads; they would probably recommend we all 'get a life'. Anyway, to fuel the fire, I have just two questions:

1. Does it look natural?

2. Does it really matter?




I'm in photography simply because I enjoy it and I don't have any pretentions of grandeur. I know my limitations and accept them, but I still try to do the best I can to take the best images possible within my limited set of skills. What I would like to know is whether you have strong opinions about whether or not an image should look 'natural' (whatever that means). I would bet my last fiver that many of you do have the said 'strong opinions'.........

Best wishes
David