PM sent.

Regards
David

This is great! I love to see everyone airing their opinions and it is this type of thread that makes the forum gripping at times. As long as we don't stray into arguments and pointing fingers, that is. Everyone has their views and others should respect them. It's very easy to misconstrue the written word and I don't think for example Clare is setting out to be rude to anyone or to stop anyone putting their point of view.

Regards
David

I can't quite remember whether or not I had a filter attached to the lens when taking the shot in this thread. It is possible that I may have had a 0.3 ND Grad, but I certainly didn't have a UV or polarising filter attached. For most of that morning I had no filter at all, as the majority of shots were taken before this one, when the light was completely different (less blue). It turned bluer as the mist started to clear a bit, just before the sun came up. At some point I did fit the ND Grad, but this would not have filtered out any blue light (please correct me if I'm wrong on this point).

I have only posted one other colour shot in my gallery that was taken at a similar time, and on the one in my Gallery the blues were purposefully reduced.

I think most people have made some valid points in this thread, the main one for me is that to get a fairer result the same person should process an image in 2 different software workflows. The arguments about whether or not certain images look natural are not that relevant to me as this was not what the thread was about.

Regards
David

I think this is because of the template used. On Foliopic the images are of a pre-determined size, if you want to view them larger, click on the image and it opens larger in a separate window.

Regards
David

Thanks for your comment Clare, I was wondering whether everyone thought I was fibbing! I think the clearest indication of the blue light is the shadows on the trees at the right, which clearly have a blue tone, even in the efforts of others where the blue has been reduced. These shadows would not be blue if the light were not blue, I think everyone has to bear in mind that this was about 6:30am in the morning when it was only just getting light and at that time, blue was the predominant tone of the light.

I did not have the camera on auto white balance, so it has not adjusted itself to remove the blue. Maybe most people are shooting with AWB, so this gets corrected to an extent in camera. I agree that the blue is overpowering, but I don't think it's fair for others to judge whether or not it is representative of the scene if they were not present! My second attempt above, whilst it may look more 'natural' is a long way removed from what the scene looked like in real life.

Regards
David

I've only just seen this and agree it is a terrific shot and a great achievement to get second place in such a prestigious competition. Well done to you.

Regards
David

This one appears to have generated a lot of interest, which is what we intended, but it also appears to have revealed very strong opinions! I've re-processed my shot in ACR and Photoshop and this time I have reduced the blues. As stated earlier, the blues HAD NOT been boosted in my original image, they probably look fiercer because of an overall increase to vibrance. This version has had the blues reduced by about 35%, but I will say again that the blue is present on the original RAW file, so it is representative of what the camera took, whether it looks natural or not.

Here is my second attempt, which I think is very similar to Will's above:




I've said to Nigel (who started the thread) that I'm happy for anyone to have a go with the RAW file, but I think we may now be reaching the point of exhaustion with regard to different versions of the same image.

Regards
David

Has anyone compared the normal (white) Eneloops with the high power (black) version? I have both and it seems to me that the standard white ones last longer and produce more shots per charge than the black ones do! Has anyone else found this, if so I would be interested to know why this may be the case, as I would have thought the reverse should apply.

In any case, Eneloops are extremely good and I've never had any issues with my K-x powered by these batteries, in contrast with normal NiMh ones which are useless.

Regards
David

I really like the Fountains Abbey images in particular. What a great little camera the Q looks to be. I've never used one, but the images often posted on here indicate that it is very good indeed.

Regards
David

Hi Smeggy

I think I'm agreeing with most of what you're saying above. The point I was trying to make was that different software inevitably produces different results, notwithstanding artistic input. There's no doubting that artistic input produces perhaps even greater differences, but if the same person took the same RAW image and processed it with identical inputs via two different software process flows, the resulting two images would not be the same.

A good illustration of the effect software can have is a modern car engine. Re-mapping the software can up the power output by up to 50%, massively increase the torque and smooth the power delivery. It's the same car with the same engine, but managed by different software.

Regards
David