Shhhh! Not so loud - I'm trying to keep it quiet in case all the Lightroom users get wind of it.

Very nice B&W shot above there - I feel here you've got a great balance of contrasting tones in the low mid to shadow areas, and the clarity & detail is great also.

By the way, what adjustments did you use in S...l...t?

The more the merrier Great to have more options for Pentax. Out of interest, are there any particular issues or complications for a lens maker to deal with in developing AF compatability for the KAF2 mount?

I don't really think thats improved it a lot - I still believe the issue is with the shadow tones, which are a bit too elevated - I'd still pull down the 'black point' and boost low tone contrast. As I said earlier, mids and highs are good in my view, but I'd like to see the clouds a 'cleaner' white.

Actually I do think that if the sky could be made more natural then the rest of the image is very realistic - perhaps pulling down the shadows and boosting 'low-tone contrast' would also help - but to me the mids and high tones appear very true to life.

I feel we have to be careful when assessing what is a life-like presentation of a scene - I believe we have become very conditioned to a 'photographic' reproduction of the world ... by that I mean an image that is restricted and dictated by the traditional photographic process. One example of this I feel is the common slight underexposure of landscapes caused by the camera metering process ('seeing' too much bright sky), so that a well exposed image can be perceived as too bright, when in fact it reproduces the natural intensity and brilliance of real sunlight.

The HDR process rectifies this, when used correctly, but unfortunately goes against the grain of this long standing conditioning to the 'tradional photoghraphic process' and so is often seen as unnatural ... when in fact it is not.

Huh? Really, you don't trust it at all? Don't you feel its a bit wasted then?

Love that shining detail under the bridge arches The 'HDR Look' is just right for the water and building I think, but not so good on the sky. I wonder if there's a way to restore some purer white tone to the rather dirty colour on the clouds, and also some blue boosting in the clear sky?

Now this is what I find curious ... ( and this is not anymore about your photo David, it is absolutely your right to present it as you prefer) ... the difference between what the photographer remembers and wants to display as 'reality', and what in fact comes across in the photo to others, who can only see the photo itself.

I'd say that more importance should be placed on what the photo actually contains and what comes across to the viewer ... and less importance on reproducing the exact details of the scene as remembered by the photographer, at least for most genres - I mean, we're not producing a Dulux colour chart, or a product catalogue here are we?

In this context - (and again, I'm not questioning your choice here specifically, its just an example for the point) then, if the right horizon presents as sloppy editing, is it not better to 'correct' for that and present the photo as 'unrealistic', in the interests of overall asthetic quality and appeal?

David, the right side horizon looks like a bit of poor blending - I'd suggest a bit of burn tool along the edge there, just to smooth the transition. The left horizon appears much more natural.

No 1 has great varying light contours across the undulations of the terrain which really makes it. It needs a lower viewpoint I feel, but no doubt there was a good reason for taking from that specific position. The blending into the sky along the right side horizon looks a bit iffy?

I too like the 'Men at Work' shot, especially with the Pentax gear in use there! The close river detail David has excellent clarity and detail on the moss covered rocks which makes you want to reach out and touch them

gtis, I'm sure there was something positive gained from the shoot There's good detail on the rocks and the water movement is great. There may be a bit too much magenta cast in your shot?

Its very striking and attention-grabbing , and appears very crisp and sharp throughout the whole DOF (well, I mean a large DOF!). The long exposure movement works perfectly on the sinkhole, but I find it annoying in the sky. Maybe on another occasion you could shoot an extra frame at a wider aperture and faster speed to catch the sky without movement blur, and blend the two in PS?