Its a combination of 'flat' lighting and compressed perspective - that adds up to the effect that Smeggy refers to. No doubt it would be transformed if there was brighter lighting, and especially more sideways directional lighting, but you can only take whats actually there

Its more about tonal relationships within the photos rather than any external fixed value of 'blown'. I know that David shares with me an interest in taking firm control over local contrast in his images, so I'm offering up these thoughts as something to consider, and I believe it will be an improvement. David may of course reject it entirely

Thanks Will, that one has attracted some attention, not the least from those getting overly warmed up on the street below. I was interested in the security camera right above me there as well.

I can't dispute the histogram, but its more specifically about the Whitepoint. What is ideal here will of course vary depending on the lighting and natural contrast. What I see in these shots, consistently, is the Whitepoint pitched too highly, and it seems to be consistent, which is why I questioned the metering.

The histogram can help, but its the visual impression that is more important. If you check, for example, the white stonework on the farm buildings, or the froth of the river, and the brightest parts of the clouds, you'll see a Whitepoint that is pitched too high for the conditions - this leads to a increased 'High Tone Contrast', which in these shots is more appropriate to that of a clear sunny day - the sky in these images suggests this was not the case. The high whitepoint has lead to a white reflectivity that is too bright.

It has an effect on high midtones as well, often an effect of using levels, which doesen't isolate mids very well - it shouldn't be necessary in these scenes to chop off bright bits on the image as Will has suggested above. I'm sure it is easy to control, but in PS may require selective work due to the limitation of levels I mentioned.

Some nice views there David. The 'high tone contrast' is a concern to me - every one has near to or actually blown highs, quite significantly in the skies, and to an extent in some of the yellow grasses & the river. I don't remember this being the case in your previous set, which were much softer toned and better controlled.

Were there any metering technique differences you used between the sets, which might explain it?

I'm sure with DNGs it could be processed back down successfully.

Thanks guys, appreciate all that David, I never saw that one coming ... I never imagined that the building curves would be mistaken for lens distortion, but I can see how in this context (lots of talk of wide angle distortions on my recent threads) it could happen. I think we have to get you down from the lakes and into the big city : here you'll find that buildings now have distortions ! Yes, this one doesn't have a straight line on it. I don't think there's any significant lens distortion here at all - it really is an amazing and weird structure.

I think Smeggy may be right about the burning cars - I read about that, and I think the light was being reflected down to the street due to the unusual angle, and it seems that large cover has been placed there - that would sure spoil the view up there I guess

Oh come on, I can't believe that - thats the one I love to stare at all day

Continuing my exploration through this densely packed part of The City, focusing on building details, I benefited from one of the very few crystal clear afternoons at the start of December.

K7 - the telephoto shots are with the 'M' 75-150 f4.0 zoom, and the wide-angles are the Samyang 14mm f2.8.































































Thanks for checking them out - I would love to hear everyones thoughts and feedback!

I do like the 'lonely nights' feel to these - the first two have a kind of 'something's going to happen here eventually' atmosphere! No 1 is the best for me with its tighter framing.

I was thinking of online web printing services, and uploading a fair number - my TIFFs are usually about 80mb, not really practical for uploading a lot.

But I suppose if you're using a CD or DVD and sending it by post then the TIFF is an option. The question is would it be any real advantage? Most of the online services I've used generally only take JPEGs I think. Certainly I've never been given any indication that the JPEGs are a disadvantage - all my shots give an 'optimum' rating when the web service assess them for the chosen print sizes, and this includes prints of 100cm x 70cm. This would be for JPEGs of the minimal compression setting and in the range of 8 - 14 mb file size.

Its one to add to the long list of clear explanations of the age-old dimension / pixel / dots misunderstanding!

I will certainly study it in greater detail, but for now the first paragraph is probably the most significant ... it is clearly a highly size-reduced or compressed JPG version intended for email, or small web display.

Louise, it is important when saving a new version of your shots in photo editing software to always choose the 'Maximum' quality option for JPEGs intended to be printed. If possible I'd try and go back through your workflow starting from when you opened the shot into the first software from the camera (or where it was first copied onto your computer).

If you are making edits to this shot and intending to continue with more work later, or you want to edit something more using a different programme, then try and 'save as' a TIFF file, and choose 'No Compression'. This will ensure that the size does not reduce. You use this TIFF file to do the edits, saving at the end again with 'No Compression'.

Then the last step is to open the final TIFF in your chosen software and 'Save As' a 'maximum quality' JPEG - this will become the final file that you send to the printers. So long as you have only chosen the 'Maximum' quality options and have not changed the dimensions of the image at any point, then the printers should be able to produce the bigger sizes you want.