The grain is maybe a little too much at this size, but the colour boost helped i think. Nigel, do we need the foreground? With any image I always ask myself what I'm making an image of and anything that isn't part of, IMHO, shouldn't be there. Hence I culled the foreground.

That's low, but £180 should find something worthwhile. Try SRS and see if they have suitable used kit, and also of course eBay. You could also put an ad here in the Classified Ads section of the forum.

It depends on the budget but you might find a fairly inexpensive K-5. In one sense, the later the model the better as things do move on.

It's unfortunate that the judge wasn't more helpful, so that something could be learned from entering the competition.

I like the low viewpoint, that's a good choice as it adds more drama to the shot. The darker foliage maybe isn't needed and it does seem to unbalance the composition. What I like least is the bending of all the stalks to the right, which seems to give a leaning effect to the picture as a whole. The contrast within the stalks is also a little weak, so darkening the whole might help.

Content-wise it isn't the most exciting shot. In summary, changing the composition, darkening the exposure and perhaps having some more dramatic lighting would help to improve the image.

Hope that helps!

This has been the subject of my two recent EPZ blogs, a very interesting special trip to Arley Hall. We had two hours to photograph the interior of the hall and then the rest of the day to enjoy the grounds and the Tudor Barn Restaurant. Here's a few sample shots, all with the K-5 and 10-17mm, 12-24mm and 18-135mm lenses.


In camera HDR (Auto)



10-17mm



18-135mm



18-135mm, 7 shots, Photomatix



18-135mm

For anyone who runs a club, many places are very willing to let amateur photographers in by special arrangement. Find an interesting place, ask and more often than not it can be done. At a cost of course! This one cost each photographer £10, which i thought was very reasonable.

300ppi is perfect for printing, as we're talking about the image size, so nothing wrong with our nomenclature. (dpi isn't a factor here as that refers to how many dots of ink the printer lays down per inch).

The image as it comes out of the camera is set at 300ppi and is approximately A3, which is spot on for exhibition and competition prints. We can use Photoshop to resample and make much bigger prints, but also the ppi can be reduced if we are viewing at a distance. We would be viewing, for example, an A1 print from much further away, so it wouldn't be a problem.

As for the largest size you can print, which was the original question, it could be any size you like, even a wall sized poster, if it's being viewed at the appropriate distance.

The Eden Project?

I never use the histogram in the field anyway. Likewise, constant review of images isn't necessary, it just gets in the way of shooting images. Rather than that, a periodic check just to make sure everything is being recorded properly.

The histogram depends so much on the constitution of a scene that it really, IMHO, only comes into its own when using Photoshop to process the images.

You don't need anything but the ability to improvise. The top of a wall, the side of a building or tree, wedging into some space as available, table tops, etc., all enhanced by a jacket or bag as an impromptu bean bag.

Having said that, a fast lens such as the 50mm f/1,8 plus a high ISO will mean hand held exposures are possible in the most amazingly unsuitable light.

Another option is to buy a cheap tripod when you arrive and leave it behind when you return home.