I was absolutely stunned when I got the *ist-D and used JPG. The image quality was waaaay above anything I'd ever managed to get on film (S1a, ME Super, MEF, MZ5, MZ10, Z1).

Then along came the K10D and that blew me away again

Film like - definitely. That's in terms of colour and gradation, shadow and highlight response especially.

As has been said, shooting RAW will give you astonishing results. But to be honest, I reckon that you'll find JPG amazing too As far as I can see, there aren't any "flaws" on the K10D - whether JPG or RAW. Even if you shoot JPG and print straight out you'll get sublime results.

The one big downside is that you may well find that your current stock of lenses will need upgrading as you find out just how sharp and good the K10D is LOL!

Matt

In my experience (which isn't huge), I find that it's horses-for-courses. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
Adding "old" TTL to the K10D is not possible, AFAIK, as it lacks the internal sensor to do the metering. Whether it would even work is doubtful - as the reflectance off the CCD is probably very different to film emulsion.

P-TTL has generally been a good experience - given that it seems to attempt to not blow out the highlights (which blow out earlier on CCD compared to film as the CCD is linear and film was logarithmic in response). That said, I do find it essential to shoot RAW when using P-TTL as there can be a fairly reasonable variance of exposure. Don't think I've had a complete dud yet...

Maybe it's a case of re-learning the workings of a different system?
HTH,

Matt

I can vouch for www.powweb.com
Have several sites there.

If it's 100% photo stuff, then www.photium.com is even better and extremely easy to use. I much prefer it rather than fiddling with html etc

EDIT: Neither place is free... but then there are no adverts or anything

Matt

Looks like you've applied quite a hard mask across exactly half the frame - in fact I can see the dividing line

You should be able to paint with a soft black brush to hide the effect on the castle - it's gone "neurgh" and flat and grey.
Hint: you can paint with a harder edge brush and then run a gaussian blur on the layer-mask itself to soften the transition.

Matt

I said it was quick (couple of minutes max) and I'm probably in an "acid-coloured smartie" mood anyway
Matt

Still a bit "flat" and lacking contrast, IMHO... and think you should've masked out the grass on the LHS as it's got very dark.

THB I rarely work in 16-bit unless I know I'm going to really slam an image. For most general shots I process in Silkypix to high quality JPG in AdobeRGB and tweak in Photoshop (my edited PSD files are usually in the order of 200Mb each, so 16-bit would double that). I'm already getting a size problem

Matt

Tyr,
Elements 2 is no problem
www.hiddenelements.com has the set of missing tools for Elements (curves, colour balance) etc. Hope they're still there as I used them a LOT before going to full Photoshop.
You can probably pick up a copy of Richard Lynch's "Hidden Elements for Elements 2" (or whatever it's called) - should include the CD with the plugins.

You should be able to pick the gradient tool, then in the tool bar (underneath the menu bar) you should see a drop-down combo box. Foreground to transparent should be the second in that list

Masking is perfectly possible too in Elements (Just different).
There is an "Add Layer Mask" plugin for Elements, but you can also use another type of masking that is outlined on my website for Elements... check that out first!

EDIT: One method you can use if shot in RAW is to develop two JPG files in your RAW converter. One for each "side" of the image and then use layers in Elements to bring the two JPGs on top of each other. Then add a clipping mask and gradients to blend the two exposures. This method will often suffice instead of going full HDR (which, believe me, you don't want to do unless you've got a lot of time and patience on your hands!).

Links: http://www.photon.me.uk/PSE/PaintingPSE.htm and http://www.photon.me.uk/PS/ps_layers_tutorial_1.htm

HTH!
Matt

Very quick go at modding...
http://www.pbase.com/image/84631574




Several layers: curves, brightness/contrast, gaussian blur layer set to "multiply" and masked, colour balance (there's a green cast in the image).

Hope that gives an idea
Matt

Ok Tyr,
Standard practice on a shot like this...

* Leave the original background layer alone
* Add a Curves adjustment layer (or Brightness/Contrast etc) and adjust to taste - just concentrate on one part of the image to get it right and ignore the mayhem in the rest of the image.
* Press Ctrl-Del (or Alt-Del depending on your foreground/background colours) to completely hide the effect
* Now pick the gradient mask tool:
- Select the mask "Foreground-to-transparent" (second one in on the default palette)
- Press "D" tp select default fore/background colours (you want white)
- Set the opacity to, say, 30%
- Gradually brush the gradient in on the image. Where it's white the curves will apply.

* When you're happy with that, add another layer and concentrate on another area of the image and repeat the process.

If you want before/after you can:
* Toggle the visibility of the curves layer
* Alt-Click on the visibility icon of the background to see a complete before/after

You can also adjust the overall opacity of any layer to reduce the effect.

I find this method amazingly quick to adjust any localised issues and regularly use it with curves (usually with the layer blend mode set to "Luminosity" so it doesn't create colour shifts), and colour-balance layers.

Have fun
Matt

On my Lacie - it's a tad dark (but they may have been the intention). There is generally detail in the shadows, however, the histogram shows that the black point is clipped (and running my "Blown-O-Matic" Photoshop action shows there are clumps of shadow that are just sitting too far down.

Ideally your histogram should not show an abrupt ending at either the black (left) or white (right) ends of the graph.

Using the levels tool: you can't lower the white point without blowing out the flower... So it looks like a slight gamma change is needed (0/1.2/255 in the levels dialog). But, based on my comments above I reckon you are better off adjusting the exposure... assuming you shot RAW

Even though a monitor is colour calibrated you will find great variations in the brightness and whether the detail is perceivable (especially in shadows). It's a right pain getting a web image to be acceptable to the widest audience

Matt