Yes, sure, but it depends on the purpose of the photograph. If its just a record of places passed then it needs nothing more than to relight those memories. If its trying to attract others attention though, say for a portfolio or possible sale, then the photographer may feel some pressure to find something to 'spruce it up' (make it more striking )

But what has come through in all the recent discussions (and I agree 100%) is that no HDR or other computer tricks can create something special if the essential ingredients were not there to be photographed in the first place.

Personally, I think Alistair's first posted shot, with the boat, had more of these 'essential ingredients' to create something.

I was thinking about the slider options in Photomatix Pro - to deepen the blacks I think you've got a 'Black Point' slider : moving it right pulls the darkest tones down even more and would add contrast to the shadow areas. This would be similar I think as using PS levels and moving the blacks slider right also, but I think the Photmatix one targets a more limited range at the very darkest end.

You're very welcome! Both your shots have given us plenty to fight over At least I can stop second-guessing you now

For a scene with this average dynamic range the suggestion of using layers to 'blend' the sky and ground is sound. If you are interested in getting some experience of layers, then I'd suggest giving Photoshop Elements a go - you can do all this sort of thing at a fraction of the cost of full Photoshop.

But I'd also agree with Alan that in LR you should be able to balance out the highs and lows to create the result you want.

I think you've put you theory into practice very well - these don't shout 'HDR' to me.

The air museum shows a nicely expanded visible DR - the detailing on the surfaces looks natural I think.

Your camera JPEG of the church has a muddy green cast which has been balanced in the HDR version, although maybe the magenta is a bit too strong. Again, looking out the rear window, the white highlights are pulled nicely back (although this type of clipping is normally easy to correct conventionally with 'recovery' type sliders).

There's a natural balance of shadows across the back too - maybe these 'lows' need a touch more depth, perhaps 'black point' pulled down a bit?

No, when I'm being pulled up on things I want to lay out clearly what the background thinking and assumptions were.

I think its interesting how these little points are transferred over between threads - adds to the richness of it all.

No, actually the ND grad filters crept in also as a misunderstanding as well (I think!) That was in response to Smeggy's suggestion on the previous thread .... here's the quote :

(Smeggypants) 'Yup, just try lowering yellow saturation. Also try they yellow hue slider and see if shifting it more green might help. or a combination. I would start again with just one image in LR. try really boosting shadows really reducing highlights, before adjusting blacks and whites to suit. And obviously adding grad filters for sky and foreground as required.'

This is apparently referring to software filters, no? Maybe the OP interpreted that as saying he needed ND grad filters on the camera?

It all gets a bit tricky doesn't it? But yes, lets not speak for Alistair.

I prefer the tones in Johns first one (the 2nd has a magenta hint that doesn't look like it could come from the natural lighting), and I can see the extra sharpness in David's version. It might be helpful David to mention what process you used for that and if it was selectively or globally applied?

I agree with the comments from Simon about the lighting though - and this applies to my thoughts on the other shot as well where I felt that to really extract something with high visual interest ('striking') then special techniques or treatment were needed, and that's probably why the photographer has been using HDR. Again, I think the results without any 'special treatment' are going to be fairly sedate under the flat lighting we have.

There's no suggestion that either of these shots would 'represent a challenge to a K-5' - I think that idea has actually crept in by error (as a misunderstanding by Smeggy about what I was meaning by saying you couldn't extract something from a single frame). This was nothing to do with the DR of the camera, but about the lighting conditions. It was my Cannizaro Park shots that were challenging the DR of the camera.

I think the photographer here has instead been trying HDR as a means to introduce more varied and creative lighting.

Thats the way to go - after deciding which way you will bias your exposures (eg plus 1 stop, or 1.5 etc) and after setting the spacing in stops between frames, press and hold the EC (+/-) button and turn the rear dial in the direction you want. You will see all the exposure points move in parallel in that direction but keeping the spacing you have set.

It depends on the scene of course, but as there is not an even spread of data recorded by the sensors throughout the range (most of it is at the mid to upper end) it makes sense to push these brackets for HDR upwards in brightness to ensure capturing the best detail in the shadows.

Too many dark exposures, and certainly where the histogram is off the left edge, will throw away good quality image data that the HDR program will need.

Card door is the more likely to open I'd have thought, I guess there's a tiny chance and thumb or something might nudge it lift and it can pop open. Card shouldn't fall out though

Battery door? Seems improabable surely - very much so for me with a BG-4 grip screwed on - that would have to fall off first

Maybe white balance? I know Photomatix Pro gives the option to set WB before the images are merged, either from a preset or custom fine tuner. Maybe setting something a bit cooler before you get going on the main editing sliders will help?