Unmistakably New York, they just have 'that feel' to them! Some are nicely observed (I like the padlocks with the taxi passing in behind ). 3, 5 & 6 are best for me. 7 looks more like a private snap really.

Some have got a sort of 'analogue' quality to them - have you used any kind of film effects?

Very interesting set from what must have been a fabulous trip!

They're all very interesting images and nicely taken. I particularly like the white balance, very natural as I'm assuming there was plenty of tungsten lighting here. Do you know if they were shot on Auto White Balance or the tungsten setting?

There's nothing unique or different to the K3 in terms of any 'ideal' processing & printing workflow - I think you may be over-complicating it. I agree that a 16bit workflow is ideal (although not really for the actual printing). If you want to enable the best quality the K3 can output, then you'd be wanting to use RAW (16bit), but this means you will be doing your own processing .... unless you are going to pay someone to edit your pictures then you need to do the RAW conversion and processing stages yourself, and produce a pixel-based file for the printers .... usually JPEG, sometimes TIFF or PNG perhaps.

It does not sound like you have done much RAW processing, so until you have practiced and become proficient, then you might in fact get better 'quality' and consistency from the camera JPEGs, at least for immediately printable output. I'd suggest shooting RAW + JPEG for a while. Get the shots right on the camera with the custom controls, then play with some RAW editing and see if you can equal the JPEGs, or better them in some ways. Then you'll be getting a feel for the advantages of RAW and if its significant for your purposes.

In my view there's no doubt that working on a 16bit RAW and then also on a 16bit TIFF (created from that RAW) in photo editing software, gives you better finer control, in particular over fine contrast control, colour balancing and saturation - you get more 'play' with the controls in 16bit, and a smoother blend between both tonal levels and colour gradations, so its worth it for sure.

If you're just using a standard AdobeRGB input, converted to sRGB output (as in a max quality JPEG saved in Photoshop) then colours should be fine for a printer, and most online services will accept this by default ... so long as you keep the maximum image size (the pixel dimensions) then even from your 8bit JPEG the printer will be able to produce a high quality print - they'll (or the online software) will tell you how big you can go before you lose any quality. If you follow this process, then unless you ask for a print bigger than their suggested maximum, you will be getting the best out of the K3.

It only gets really more complicated if you're dealing with commercial printers for some publishing purpose and need to carry out RGB to CMYK conversions, matching printer profiles and all that stuff, which is beyond my experience and probably beyond the needs of most photographers.

I think there's great value in the wider-view 'sense of place' type shots within a series, so thanks for showing that for those of us who don't know the spot.

A great job, moody atmosphere and nicely pitched exposures

Another thumbs-up for the life-like clarity and 'presence' of the textures.

You could be right Puggy - focus looks to be a bit short of the horses with sharp objects nearer the camera, but then again much of the backgrounds is also fairly in focus, so I wonder if the aperture could have been wider? As you said, higher ISO would have helped also. I'm guessing its the movement that is causing the slight softness on the subjects.Vic, do you remember what the settings were?

I'm sure there are other ways of showing both parts of the falls - maybe a straighter-on viewpoint? I'm sure Stan will be able to experiment on a further visit. Or would it work simply as a wider panorama shape, keeping the right side but just less top and the bottom as in this new version?

Its a testimony to the shot that it can take such adjustments!

Alan, that was lucky you didn't jump in agreeing with me too quickly I like it also without the very front rock, but that does then unbalance the top edge with a lot of foliage there. Would changing the aspect ratio to wider (by trimming top & bottom) be the ideal solution?

Oh come on I guess thats a good point, its a little bit of extra interest over there on the right, but does it add much? I feel the whole thing would be stronger if the bulk of the main falls was more off-centre, and the upper parts just pull the eye up needlessly ....