How much we're affected by what's going on with other brands depends on how we view the relationship between the gear itself and the actual photography. For me, the two (Pentax specifically & the actual pursuit) are almost one and the same - that's probably why I'm a bit of a camera settings geek - I link the equipment and technical process very closely to the actual picture taking mentally. So I hardly notice adverts for other cameras - just not on my radar.

I know plenty of others regard the actual equipment much more as 'just a tool' ... I agree with this of course, but for these people then its not so important what particular camera or brand they're using. This makes it more complicated (and expensive)if you're trying to get the best of all worlds. Then I guess you're radar is more widely tuned to new things and advances elsewhere.

Clearly not judging by that rather bland photo of yourself there !

It would be good to see some scanned shots from a Pentax film camera. How do you go about digitizing your negs or slides ?

Nigel

Gosh, that's just so super - I see you've got some meditation practice going on there. That's the spirit

It remains the case that the number of photographers who truly 'need' FF, and can financially justify (in terms of future return) losing considerable amounts of money on re-establishing with a different system, is surely very limited. :

Nothing boring about the planning involved in great landscape photography - would add to the excitement and anticipation I should think. And any checklist-style of approach to carrying out the shoot is best left to complement the creative elements - they will work in harmony.

Individuals will choose how forward in their conscious are the individual steps. The most experienced will be on auto-pilot for much of it. My main point is that Phil's inspired images are the result of this combination of elements - the knowledge of location, the experience in the preparations and being there at the right time, the technical skills allowing the highest quality captures .... and finally, at the right moments, the inspiration and motivation to press the button at the time he chooses, by whichever experience he wishes to inform that.

Don't feel bad Alan - there's more to draw on ... you could try some meditation, or better still take a checklist next time !

There's a gentle joke, but a serious point also. (I make no apologies - I had to suffer a Dalek Invasion of my 'Checklist' thread ). Phil's thoughts on capturing the moment here and my own ideas (expressed through the checklist) are in fact related.

They represent almost the outer extents of the photographically creative & practical spectrum. By occupying such opposing positions they are in fact interrelated, opposing but attracting, interdependent. Neither offer a complete truth or solution -

- a technical checklist will only prepare the way, provide the ready means to capture that transient light in the highest quality recording. But it cannot create the moment or provide the inspiration.

- a meditative & mindful approach can only inform and inspire the moment of capture and produce an inspired and informing record following a considerable number of previous preparations, skills and experiences have joined. For example, a location is known and explored, a map is studied, the seasons and time of day are considered, the sun directions and weather is researched, a journey is planned, the camera is made ready, the car has enough fuel, the body has some snacks, the lens is fitted, modes and settings are checked .... many of these may be instinctive or not consciously considered, but they occur none the less.

They must occur before the inspiration can have effect. The camera / equipment checklist is a part of this, either applied directly or just through experience. This is the interdependence between the two ..... neither alone can produce a great photo.

You can't see a RAW image You can see its embedded JPEG, on the camera rear LCD or in a cataloguing programs thumbnails. It may be worth just saving out to larger JPEGs anyway to test the theory. If you're using Elements try rendering out to a 16bit image from ACR into the main editor, then 'save as' a 16bit tiff in the main editor, to see if the banding remains there also.

When ACR displays the image during editing this is not full resolution (to keep the editing on the preview updating quickly), so the banding may still be there because of this.

Larger JPEG files have always resolved this problem for me, so if that's not the issue we'll have to call in some more opinion!

The last of these new ones is my favourite - again, captures that special atmosphere of the time and season. I like the low viewpoint of the first (new) one, good composition I think - but its let down by the very obvious outline where you've blended the sky & foreground exposures - if you're using layers and a mask, a finer edged brush may help, and much smaller brush right at the join.

We've still got the banding - what size are your JPEGs now?

Sounds useful - where should I slot it into the checklist ?