I'm putting up a shot of my own here - absolutely not wanting to distract from Stridey's (the other Nigel ) beautiful New Forest scene, which has the clear advantage of the well placed ponies. But there are striking similarities in many of the elements I see, and I feel it raises a very debatable point about backlit exposures such as these.

No doubt there will be much varied opinion, but I contend that Stridey's shot (we're going to have to leave out the 'Nigels' here :wink represents more a camera meter's interpretation of the exposure balance, whereas mine represents more the effect of the eye's automatic adjustment and 'compensation' for the widely differing dynamic range.

When I suggested Stridey should rebalance the shadows exposure it was with this effect and realism as the aim. This sort of decision must concern many many types of shots, so I wonder if you all agree with me??


Near Coulsdon Common, southern border of Croydon & Surrey. K7 & Samyang 14mm at f.11

I like the idea of having an anonymous photos forum, maybe with a competitive element also. It would be interesting to remove the personality aspect from it, although obviously some individuals styles will clearly show through and identify them.

But I do think that often comments are somewhat tailored to individuals, which may or may not be helpful in any single case.

Maybe we could have the first 10 shots put up on the new forum every day open for discussion, then a vote on a favourite. Only after that would the photographers be revealed. Obviously there has to be a way of getting the images up without them being posted from the users own account. Just an idea.

I agree its an atmospheric shot, nicely caught. I'm not convinced about the exposure balance though. I think the ground and trees need bit of 'fill light' or shadow lift to appear more as the eye would perceive.

Walkeja, you're gettin' it now

There's plenty of humour all over the forum. The point I made about the HMS Victory shot was that the way it was presented and the photographers comments (which were limited to witty remarks about the subject) did not invite critical comment on the creative or technical elements.

It is these aspects of photography that most interest me, so whilst I can enjoy the humour, I'm less likely to join in on this occasion. If the photographer had reported that they had chosen (for example) 'HDR normal mode, f11 @ 1/60sec, -0.7 EC to retain highlight detail .... etc etc' then that would likely provoke a critical response, focusing on the effectiveness or otherwise of the chosen settings, and of course debate about alternatives.

Thats kind of an example of the sort of post that might not draw a lot of attention. Your HMS Victory shot is perfectly OK of course, but the way its presented and the intro comments don't really draw out critical comment, either artistically or technically, because the assumption is that it was a 'record-type' capture of something you visited. You only talk about the boat itself, not about the capture process or equipment aspects, so critical analysis doesn't appear to be your priority.

I'm not inclined to pass critical comments on framing, exposure etc because it doesn't seem appropriate in the context, if you know what I mean.

But everyone's ideas and responses are valid and worthwhile - we're all photographers and use Pentax - that is qualification enough to comment on any photo and equipment aspect also. Sometimes comments might be limited to just a certain aspect of a shot.

For example, I might suggest a touch of 'low contrast', or mention some colour noise, and I might have a suggestion for how it could be dealt with. Saying this does not imply that I rank myself equally or above the photographer in question, or that I even could have got the shot if I had the opportunity. It just means I have seen something similar in my own shots and have an effective remedy, and I feel it could be applied to and help the shot in question.

I believe that most photographers here, even the most experienced, do appreciate that input.

What a little huddle! Well spotted. I really like the shallow depth of field here with OOF elements both in front of and behind the main subjects

I would suggest a touch more 'Low Contrast' (ie a small black boost overall) just to firm it up.

Fair points. I think more people though are probably put off at the prospect of getting a critical onslaught, and loads of suggestions to do things that would not be possible or weren't feasible unless you were able to mount a professionally prepared expedition specifically for the purpose.

Personally, I'm not worried about this - I'd rather hear it all and take it on board for future. We all know that in many cases the logical response can only be ' yeah, good idea, .. but..' Over time though, these things can add up and we can try to apply them when the opportunity turns up.

Sometimes the photographer can help though - I've seen many posts where the photos are thrown up with little or no background to the shoot, the equipment or settings used for example - all these things can provide other people with a springboard to respond, even if its just recognition of a location or lens used - this will often prompt further critical comments as well. So we an all help out by providing interesting context to the photos themselves. Even if something is an obvious issue, it could be flagged up initially as a question for others ideas.

All very nicely composed - the upright works very well with these. This time (unlike the previous set when you ventured up to the tops) the light and drama in the clouds really add to the interest. Well done with that lone rock in the water on the 2nd - you had move around to get that no doubt using a prime lens!

I think the contrast and colours are excellent on the 1st - I wonder if the Black & White ones would benefit from a touch more contrast as well (not the sky, mainly the more distant land). In any case, I would like to see colour versions also, if poss?