I don't normally do Black & White / Sepia as a rule but I just had a little play around with it, with some advice from my wife who is more of a black & white aficionado. C&C welcome.


One

[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/Harbour.jpg[/IMG]



Two

[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/Distance.jpg[/IMG]



Three

[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/Saltire.jpg[/IMG]



Four

[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/Swiftsure.jpg[/IMG]

Reach for Infinity

[IMG]http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb411/msitaylor/ReachforInfinity800.jpg[/IMG]

Taken yesterday. Abstract view of public sculpture near Cockenzie Power Station, Prestonpans, East Lothian.

DateTimeOriginal: 2011:06:04 16:09:13
ISO: 100
Aperture: 2.8
ShutterSpeed: 1/1600
FocalLength: 17.0 mm
Make: PENTAX
Model: PENTAX K-5
ExposureCompensation: -1.0
DriveMode: Single-frame; No Timer; Shutter Button; Single Exposure
Copyright: Mark S. I. Taylor
LensType: Tamron AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di-II LD (Model A16)

Yes, well assuming this post is on the level...

If you have to 'give it a tap' to get it working there are two possible reasons for this: either a mechanical part is 'stuck' and needs a physical jolt to free it, or there is a loose electrical connection, usually what's known as a 'dry joint'. (The latter was the classic fault with old CRT television sets you had to whack to get them started). Either problem can potentially get worse with further usage and could eventually render the camera permanently inoperative. Therefore you need to insist the problem is fixed properly or the camera replaced. For a 'Pentax Tech' to just tap it and give it back to you in the same state is shockingly unprofessional.

Hi! Not too far from you in Edinburgh.

Yep, particularly certain historical polytheistic religions. The Greek and Norse pantheons, for example, also had their share of knuckle-draggers.

That's what I've found, in the 'love it or hate it' sense. Even in the 'love it' camp though I think there is a recognition that it can be done quite badly. It's like the difference between a steak that's 'well done' by a good competent chef and one that's merely overcooked... and although I normally have my steak medium, I do enjoy the occasional 'well done' too.

As mentioned earlier also some of the more extreme examples look much better as large prints or full screen images than they do small. Initially I had no idea why this was the case but after reading up more on the subject, it appears to be because with a larger version the eye can scan it area by area as it would a 'real life' scene, whereas a small version can be taken in almost with a single glance. As a result the effect of the image looking somehow 'wrong' or 'unnatural' is actually amplified by making the image smaller.

Whilst I actually quite like the OTT appearances that HDR images can have, they really don't have to look that way. Check out the "Natural HDR" Flickr group for many find examples of natural looking HDR images. http://www.flickr.com/groups/natural_hdr/

I wouldn't classify the shots you posted here as "Natural HDR" as they look like they've been processed for maximum impact rather than realism. I think they would look good larger, as they have too much impact for the small sizes you've posted here. It's hard to explain but images like these just don't look good in small sizes - they look as if they're literally trying to burst out of the frame. They'd be better suited to A2 size prints or at a resolution large enough to fill the screen although I realise it's impractical to post images that large on here.

Not that I'm any kind of expert on HDR. I've only done a couple myself and they aren't that great, but I have looked at many hundreds, probably even thousands of examples by other people.

Did you try opening the files directly in Photoshop instead of Picasa first? If the colours still come out funny make sure you have the latest updates for Photoshop downloaded, the K-R is a fairly recent model camera and raw converter profiles which aren't up to date can have some very odd effects.

(For example before I got the proper updated version of UFRaw for the K-5 it just converted every picture into one solid wash of uniform red).

I use this wired one. It is of pretty decent build quality:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pixel-Digtial-Shutter-Locking-Powershot/dp/B0046PBGZI/re...=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1306525217&sr=1-3

Has a 'hold' function so you don't have to hold the button down yourself. You have to take the time to plug it in, but the with a wireless you have to take the time to switch the camera to the correct mode so six vs. half-a-dozen really. I have never found the length of the cable to be problematic, and wireless remotes tend to have a fairly limited range anyway. Plus a wired remote does not require a battery, so scores a bonus there.

I voted "Maybe once the price decreases" but I would also add that said FF model would have to offer a significant benefit over top-of-the-range ASP-C models like the K-5, and by that I mean a more significant benefit than FF cameras offer right now.

That may seem like a very big proviso, but I don't think it's beyond the bounds of probability that the technology used in the K-5's sensor to improve ISO/noise handling could reap even larger benefits when applied to FF sensors... otherwise I wouldn't be interested in FF at all.

Primarily my interest lies in the fact that now I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction that I can get decent images of moving targets (people) in obscenely low light conditions with reasonably fast shutter speeds and without resorting to flash, and I really like the results. Anything enabling me to take this technique even further would naturally be of interest.

Unless I get an unprecedented pay rise in the near future though, £2,000 is likely to be firmly out of bounds.

[Oh, and if Pentax are listening I'd also like better low-light AF, please, regardless of the format ]