I do like your last one there - great sky! I love that wide angle effect when the clouds seems to 'wrap around' the distance, and beautiful blues. Layout is good, plenty to take in and nice anchoring foreground. Yes, when you get a chance on the computer, give the shadows a little boost upwards and that should reveal some nice tones and textures.

Thanks Stan, kind of you to pass the baton my way, and I'm looking forward to my little run with it Well done with your 5-in-a-row!

None of this can distract from the achievement of Carl's excellent shots, we all agree on that, and we seem to agree also on the special compositional quality of the last one.

Its good when images raise points of interest - it certainly adds to the number of replies and views, and thats always a good thing!

Skys contain a range of brightness 'levels' like anything else - highlights, midtones, shadows. The thing about an ND grad is that it works to reduce the levels of each equally - it does not distinguish between high, mids & lows - they all come down by the set amount, be that 2 or 3 stops depending on the filter. Moody cloud shadows would normally fall within the dynamic range of the surrounding scene ... it is really the highlights and sky midtones that are outside our available DR, and that need reducing with the filter.

Because we have no way to prevent the sky shadows coming down as well with the filter, we end up with very dark sky shadows (too dark IMO as you know). This I wonder if it has become accepted as a stylistic feature, added drama which was not really there ....

When I am saying to change the sky, it is not about the general brightness levels (midtones), nor even the highlights - it is just the shadows. What I am complaining about is not the darkness of the sky overall in relation to the ground - it is in fact the CONTRAST within the sky itself ... the relationship of the shadow levels to the mids and highs within the sky. So the remedy is not to raise the brightness of the sky, but to isolate the sky shadow tones and raise them closer to the nearby sky mids., thereby REDUCING CONTRAST within the sky area. This is what I believe will lead to a better, more natural result, without sacrificing the mood or drama within a nicely balanced cloudy sky.

Thanks Gary, all interesting stuff and good to hear that endorsement of the upgraded AF on our K5II model.

I appreciate that pros need to invest in particular equipment for a particular need, but for most amateurs I'm sure any kind of system jump is a very major decision financially, and not one that many of us could take lightly. Its not really about being 'stuck', more that the commitment beds in and that leads to perhaps an entrenching of positive feelings about ones chosen brand

Exciting news! Good move I'm sure, its a fabulous investment and a great camera. Do the newer DA type medium format lenses offer much more over earlier film era lenses? Sounds like you've got a glass collection ready to go anyway.

Just remember, sure, the camera cost a lot, but each picture is just as free free free as those from the K5 - and a LOT bigger!!

How about you give us the clouds on the 2nd with the mountains of the first? Then we might all be happy !

Thanks for taking on board the ideas ... the clouds are an improvement I feel - yes, I'd go even further with it and lift the blacks more (leaving the mids and whites exactly as they are of course) - but its your call! and it is a great sky

I may not have been clear enough on the Langdale Pikes, sorry - I didn't mean the whole mountain range in your first shot. That has removed too much colour in total, leaving it looking sort of duo-toned, not the effect you intended I think. I was really just looking mostly at the 2nd, 3rd & 4th ones where the Pikes in the distance are a different tone to the closer hills - they have a cyan / blue cast and have lost contrast - it was just those little areas I was thinking about.

The mountains in your first one look great I think - a little mono in tone, which is nice - perhaps you could pull out a little more yellow / green?

I saw these quickly when you first posted, but didn't have time then to comment, sorry ... I've always liked your garden shots Will, you pick out such interesting little segments from within the wider area. These continue this 'theme', lots of little mini scenes to explore.

Best for me are the last Parteer with its bold centralised compo, Rill & Long Border. Rill I love, its a great angle and the foreground subject is nice and sharp. Some of the others like this (I mean with strong foreground plants anchoring them at the base) are let down by lack of focus at the very front, but I accept without a tripod you were limited with this.

I enjoyed checking out your take on another beautiful garden

Sorry, just re-read Fletcher's opening post ! Its easier for us 'hobbyists' with limited budgets - most of us are effectively 'stuck' with the system we've chosen - it becomes a commitment, and then something to defend.

For those earning money, its clearly a more difficult choice ... I was puzzled by Gary Cabstar's recent comment (can't find the thread now to reply directly) about Pentax autofocus in low light venues ... he was singing its praises, but he'd made the move to Nikon, presumably to get better autofocus / low light performance specifically for his venue shooting needs ??

Yes, very pleasing, its got a bit of everything! I think it could take a bit of shadow lifting, which would reveal colour and light on the nearer shorelines and give it a nice 'lift'.

Thanks Stan, another hard act to follow, but I'm looking forward to my turn with the baton