Yes, that's more 'as the eye would see it' I think, plus it is starting to reveal the more intricate autumn colours which were shrouded in silhouette. Of course, this 'silhouette' is a perfectly acceptable 'photographic' effect, and the halo's don't need to be lost (as Will was concerned about earlier) - you could boost the halo highlights by isolating the sky by selection first.

I agree the JPEG here is not going to help quality-wise, but we get the idea.

I wouldn't bet on it But I am glad to get people thinking about it

Well, TBH these sort of things can vary between monitors anyway - I admit it is more obvious on my desktop than on the laptop. In any case, it should only take the slightest input to remove it if you don't like it. I just didn't think it had a clear source, such as the more orange sunset tones.

Its an effective detail shot and captured nice and sharply, and the strong diagonals make for an effective composition.

I think the exposure could be more balanced (ie less bright sky and a bit of shadow lift to see some more detail on the circular rigging things).

Also the blue fringing (a kind of chromatic abberation) is very strong along the top edge of that metal rod - caused by the extreme exposure contrast. I'm sure a selection closely around it and de-saturation would deal with it.

2nd one's great! Love the low viewpoint and it has a kind of surreal tone.

On the first one theres a bit of magenta cast coming over on the clouds near the middle which doesn't look quite right - maybe a more orangy tone like over on the horizon to the right would look better, or just desaturate it all to grey.

No of course, its not 'unnatural' in a negative sense - no one can say there's any 'right' or wrong about this. But what I do wonder is whether we have become accustomed to the quirks (and failings ) of camera metering, to the extent that the camera's interpretation has become of itself a kind of 'natural', when it is in fact not.

In our examples here it appears to me that the lighting levels on the ground in Strideys image would be as you would see in reality after the sun had dropped below the horizon, and its rays were no longer directly illuminating the ground.

The human eye sees in a kind of HDR manner, and in order to recreate that 'naturalness' in my image I had to compensate technically and blend exposures.

But I'm only interested in discussing these ideas generally and getting views, its not to detract from Strideys very effective image - that was just the springboard!

I too like the framing and 'layering' as Dr Mhuni said - my main suggestion for composition would be lower viewpoint so we feel up close and personal to the water and some leaves floating on it, and maybe a tilt to the right slightly as the horizon looks a bit off.

But also, nothing seems absolutely sharp and crisp. Its a tricky kind of shot to grab handheld as light levels are not all that bright, and you need a fairly small aperture. I think the only way to be sure of getting it really sharp is to use a tripod (which often helps composition too), focus about a third into the scene (approx hyperfocal distance) and set around about f11 or f16 to ensure all elements are reasonably sharp.

Sticking to photography and learning about it, I think its important to keep a distinction between recording medium (ie film or digital) and the essential tools that are needed to best learn about the fundamentals of photography.

Lets not equate 'film' or 35mm with 'basic', or 'manual' - the latest pro-spec film era SLRs (from the early 2000s) are loaded with high - tech sophistications to aid the capture of images and manage the film transport, a great deal of which would be bewildering to any beginner.

But restrict their operations to Av or M exposure modes, centre-weighted metering and use a manual focus lens, and you've got the essential tools to learn photography, without unnecessary complications. Apply the same approach on our latest K3 DSLR and you've achieved exactly the same.

The obvious benefit with the digital option is the instant review of images for learning feedback.

I would encourage our OP to learn all about his film cameras, and he'll find plenty of help here from both current and ex users of the great Pentax models from the past. But it is surely good advice and common sense to also recommend a DSLR - (an older, relatively cheap one will do) and use the two side by side, as the visual information from the digital camera will be so more effective and practical in aiding efficient learning.

The special qualities of film and its processing can still be valued, and the old camera's no doubt can be a joy to own and use, but it would be short-sighted these days to suggest that someone should use a 35mm film camera to learn about general photography.

Its best to keep the learning aspect separate from the actual recording format,I think.

If its just about learning camera settings and techniques, then of course, the instant feedback of digital is enormously beneficial, allowing instant testing with different settings. I've done this recently with flash exposure - set 'm' mode, focus on an object, and play with the aperture (to vary the objects brightness) & shutter speed (to vary the background 'ambiant light' brightness. A great way to learn quickly about creative use of flash.

You can do this sort of thing with a fairly simple DSLR - just set manual exposure mode, centre-weighted metering, and use a manual lens if you want ... you've now basically got the same control and 'feel' of an old 80's film SLR, but you see what you've shot straight away.

As said above, this will accelerate the learning, and you can then get stuck into film shooting with more confidence, and less expense perhaps. The experience of both will be valuable too, allowing better informed choice about what to use in each situation.

Now I feel a lot better - next time my shots are totally panned I know now to take it as a big complement!!