I really can't see what is so contestable in my comment We are only talking about this very 1 shot, and considering the dull lighting, muted and uniform tones, I still think it is fair to say that 'it may be difficult.... from a single frame'.

Despite all the negative feedback about the HDR, the OP doesn't seem too interested in trying it 'as it is'? If anyone can produce a truly 'striking' image created from a single frame of this then I'll gladly retract!

And if we are asked to comment on something like this shot, its hard to imagine just what we might be talking about if its nothing technical about the processing - maybe you'd prefer it to just be things like 'not too keen on the boat'.

Well, then we could start talking about cloning techniques ....

Well done to questionablecarrot for trying out something new - I think he's made a good stab at it.

You could just do that. Most people commenting here have rejected the HDR effect as unrealistic. My view is that the scene would be dull with just a basic processing, as there is not enough variation or interest in lighting and contrast across. So I would retain the HDR processing, but tone it down a bit.

If you can't do Photoshop layers work (as I suggested earlier, I think this blending technique would give the best quality), then you might re-run the shots through the HDR program (was it Photomatix - I asked about the 'Lighting effects' buttons before), but try and keep the changes you see to a minimum.

Shows off the atmosphere of the day well - looks like a peaceful and pleasant spot. I've seen Marlow and it's bridge on the map and had it in the back of my mind to visit.

I like the challenge of composing shots without the flexibility of a zoom, having to move around more to get what you want. Maybe No 1 would have benefited from a lower-down viewpoint with something closer in the foreground?

Personally I would like a bit more saturation in the blues and greens. Thanks for letting me see a bit of this place.

For once mine wasn't a technical comment - by 'striking' I meant with enough visual interest, like in the HDR version with its varying levels of light and shade. This is a uniformly lit scene, so no doubt a K-5 could cope!

I think the problem is that it may be difficult to extract much of a striking image out of any single frame, as the lighting is so flat and there are fairly muted and dull tones throughout. It could be argued I think that it is the HDR that makes it (or could with a subtler approach)

How about this ? Make a plain, straight processing of the shot with a simple contrast range and realistic uniform lighting. Open both versions (they must be the same dimensions) in Photoshop (or other layer-capable program), copy your HDR one and paste in onto the straight version as a new layer.

Then you can use layer opacity and / or paint over it with a layer mask to carefully bring through aspects of the HDR effects at targeted spots - this way you can get a flavour of that interest and lighting detail provided by the HDR process, but without the effects being too OTT.

Well I really like it. You have spread the light levels around the scene nicely - this looks like the use of Photomatix Pro's 'Lighting Effects' buttons ?

And the colour tones look good I think (although maybe I'm not the best expert here :wink As far as realism goes, to me it seems as if there is a bit too much light inside the boat and in the grassy areas behind to the right - it doesn't seem to come from the natural sunlight which is obviously very diffused from the heavy cloud cover. The areas to the left and back over the lake look OK though.

With the sky I find the shadow levels dominate - personally I would pull up the shadows more towards mid tones and even out the contrast - the mids and highs could come up a bit too, I think this would look more 'natural'.

But its a great effort and the scene suits the style of processing IMO.

OK, I'm coming back for some more !

How about this one ? Natural ? Again, has a pretty wide DR I think, between the deepest shadow top left corner and the hotspots on the flower pot.

Can I get some new feedback ?

I have so much appreciated all the input from everyone, which has been very helpful. I am going to redo those shots - I will try a toning down of the saturated foliage colours and will boost the low-down contrast. I have decided to use the HDR master TIFFs and apply these adjustments in the interests of quality and retaining the widest DR. I'll post the new images back on the original thread when they're ready.

But, for now, just some advice - I haven't heard much about how people respond to the two non-HDR shots on the original thread. I'll put them here again, and would love it if any of you could throw those honest opinions out loud and strong!!

My Tamron Adaptall 135mm f2.8 is a useful little item - well made and solid. It came from a secondhand dealer with a K-Mount adapter already fitted, so I had no worries there, although I guess these adapters are easily found?

Its not a true macro, but is kind of constructed like one with a big manual focus ring that has a very long and precise turn, so focusing handheld is a breeze. Seems sharp, but the bokeh is not great wide open.

It has an additional lever that neither of my Pentax MF lenses have, and that controls whether or not the aperture jumps back to fully open after shooting. In this position you get the full opening for the viewfinder. In the other position the aperture remains fixed at the position set on the ring, and so it makes the view dark at smaller settings. I'm guessing this option was to accommodate cameras with different mount capabilities at the time.

Hi fatspider - if that question was for me then yes, I have one and used to use it a lot with film. It doesn't fit onto my 14mm lens, so I use a software polariser - this is more versatile as it can be selectively applied to those areas that respond best to it.