But we see the two exposures as a single image. I've compared the two shots in question (my HDR & Andrew's last blended) and in fact there's not much in it. The HDR has slightly brighter highlights and less clipped shadows, whereas the blended has a bunching of clipped shadows rising half-way up the histogram. This explains I guess the extra detail to be seen in the deeper shadows on the HDR and the slighly 'deeper' result of the blended. But DR is very similar.

It'll come . Andrew, good point raised earlier about the detail. I would think this shot taken with standard metering and +3 stops compensation would give you around about a midtone ... ah, yes, grey stonework! Near a midtone. Now that I would expect to be able to see in a church in daylight like this.

MrB above seems to be thinking that our eye are going to be so dazzled that we'll be blinded to all this (midtone) detail? What do others think?

The whole beauty of the human visual system is its capacity to make continuous scanning rapid exposure adjustments, taking in a huge range of tones and memorizing detail along the way. Even Smeggy above accepts the detail in my HDR is OK - its the compressed DR he objects to. Well, which has more compressed DR - my HDR or some other blended exposure versions?

Yes, by the measure of dougf8's post above, then maybe I shouldn't have posted some of my countryside pics .... on the basis that some (thats a tiny minority right, just a few people here and there, not even significant statistically, not even an amount that would fall into the usual survey's margin of error) might find them a teeny weeny bit, that's just a very little amount boring dull & mediocre ... (not many at all) .... But then we'd all have missed out on so much fun, excellent all-round quality photo-taking expertise and general good advice ... not to mention learned nothing of the scenic delights on offer near to the Croydon-Surrey borders.

ah finally, something new and original on here ...



yeah, but you've never found the slightest speck of yellow colour noise on any of them ... so there ya go !!

Good idea. I'd also say BarryE that posting 'unprocessed' RAWs (is there such a thing?) is perhaps not going to show off the qualities of either the camera or lens to the best. At the very least you need some contrast tweaking and sharpening.

Do you think your RAW converter has applied any of this already automatically?

Sorry Class-A, I have been distracted lately by all the loads of activity on this site! I was really talking about the versatility of the flashgun itself as a standalone unit - either hotshoe mounted or off camera with a cable, as it does not appear to offer any sort of auto-flash control. So I'm left assuming (after reading the instructions) that it would have to be fully manually operated (ie it is not going to tell you distance and / or power to set after inputing ISO & aperture) - the user is going to have to choose the power themselves initially and go from there?

This does not have to be a real limitation of course - it goes back to the days of flash tables, but it would take a rethink of a quick working method on Pentax DSLRs. I'm thinking of starting a topic to discuss this with some ideas about how to approach quick manual flash control. By the way, Class-A, thanks for your excellent evaluation on the other forum of this new cactus gun and the flash system.

Couldn't you just have said 'Nice shots mate?'

I think they're good, little slices of a little world. I'd give them a bit more sharpening.

WEll I'm clearly not the only one then judging it based on NOT actually ever being there!

When you were in your hallucinogenic haze how many stained glass windows did you stand around staring at?

What details can you see in my HDR version do you not think your eyes would be able to make out?

Come on everybody - lets get some more representative opinions on here! Who else thinks the last HDR posted is just an acid trip, not what your eyes would see???

Often I find people are looking for totally different things. I might value some aspects of my pics, something technical maybe, but if I say that I'll just be told its all about 'seeing', or something like that.

But this is not just about responses to photos and critque - the forum has a life in many other ways as well. There are still too few people participating in very interesting topics (IMO), eg those concerning HDR and exposure / metering choices. We should all have something to add to those, or questions to ask.

Will do Andrew, but not today probably - I don't have access to my photo editing computer at present - hopefully tomorrow. Sorry, I was going to email you full-sized JPEGs, but my broadband went down for 2 days.