David, I have made my 'defence' purely with the aim of stimulating further discussion and thoughts about exposure etc. Most of my input on this forum is constructed with this specific aim.

I feel compelled to muster up at least some defenses

Putting aside questions about monitor calibrations etc, as obviously we can never all be seeing exactly the same colour tones and light intensities as we sit in front of all our different screens...

To say my scene seems too bright to be realistic is a bit unfair surely? I mean, compared to Johns original image here, the light intensity is clearly stronger and there are a wide range of high toned and reflective surfaces basking in the glare. It is that combination of reflective and intense lighting that is presented to the eye.

Johns scene has more uniform mid tones and a softer light. My shot would present the camera meter with the classic high reflective light situation, which if uncompensated would result in a somewhat darker image than was actually seen.

Is it possible that those looking for darker presentations of these scenes are responding to what they have seen an uncompensated camera meter produce, interpreted that as 'natural', and so consequently respond to my scenes as unnaturally bright, when it is actually realistically so?

Can we really specify any 'correct' shade of blue for a sky? I can say that I have tried to represent the particular pale shade that was present that morning (about 10am), and I have drawn a clear contrast between that and the strong deep painted blues on the various objects below.

And how is this sky 'too bright'? Most skys are significantly brighter than whats below, that would be natural - is this relationship not depicted 'realistically' in my image?

This has all been amazing - very helpful input from everyone thanks. The problem for me though is that the original criticism surrounded the images concerned lack of 'realism' and 'naturalness'.

Whilst I have taken on board the feedback concerning over-saturation and lack of low-down contrast, I can not see that any of the alternatives (either toned down versions of my original, or new processings from one of the bracketed DNGs) represents in total the original scene as well as the HDR versions (although accepting that the colours should be toned down.

What was striking as I shot was the really intense glare, with a heatwave-like atmosphere. Sunglasses were a must, and indeed I viewed the scene through sunglasses, which certainly added to the 'polarised' and saturated colours. None of the reworkings, including my own attempts, has in any way conveyed this. As well I am finding the colours in the reworked images to be a rather dull greeny muddy colour - probably caused by the quite severe side/backlighting and the contrast challenges of that. Those were not the dominant colours in the scene, rather they were deeper and there were more clearly discernible individual tones in the tress and foliages.

I still am not convinced that a single exposure could encompass the full DR in any of the shots. John Riley has been saying that none of the scenes would 'challenge the camera', but I'm aware that he often shoots JPEGs - would not his JPEGs in fact be a rendering of the scene with a compressed DR from the JPEG processing anyway?(a form of in-camera HDR in a sense?)

It may be that Pentaxophiles idea of separate layers and blending for the sky and ground may be best (which was the approach I used in the 'Cholcolate Box' image).

OK, here's the mid exposure. Just basic RAW conversion in PDCU, most sliders at default. We can compare this to my very first HDR version (3rd shot down from the top of this thread). I know which one I prefer.

Here's a couple of mine, but NOT HDR this time . Just run through my normal processes. But these scenes are more evenly lit I think, so I accept do not present such a challenge to the camera. I see them as well exposed and 'natural'.










For interest, both shot with the 'K' 75-150 zoom.

To me, the first absolutely! This represents the scene in a manner that would be experienced by the viewer in person - I believe the eyes take in a scene like this in a type of scanning fashion, automatically compensating and making the exposure and contrast adjustments in a kind of 'continuous HDR' process.

The Second, not really, because the shadow areas are 'unnaturally' dark and would have been compensated for by this 'continuous HDR' process by the viewer in person.

It is my view (and I'm not trying to defend my Cannizarro shots here as meeting any kind of realism ideal :wink, that the photographic medium is incapable rendering scenes like these (and my Cannizaro shots) on a single frame. I know John been saying my shots are no challenge to the camera, but I have to contend this.

Granted, Johns own shot here probably is within the DR of the camera, but my scenes contain considerable and very bright areas of sky, as well as the deep shadows that everyone has been saying must be portrayed almost fully black! Thats very challenging I think, and why I chose the HDR approach. When I tried the alternative working with just the mid range DNG I am really struggling with the quality at both ends of the scale.

That would be fine - if anyone wants to use one of the DNGs then send me a PM with an email address.

I should add that my 2nd versions here are not HDRs, but are made from the middle bracket DNG from the 5 shot brackets. The fact is, even this middle exposure (ie meter at 0 position) is beyond the DR of the camera -histogram is blocked up both side extremes. So processing just this one frame is a challenge in itelf.

So, I actually see these scenes as high dynamic range, and technically beyond the camera's sensitivity. That is why I chose the bracketing and HDR technique.

I knew I shouldn't have believed that Jessops man telling me the K7 could shoot 3D !

Thanks for the view on it though - I obviously tried to convey a sense of depth with the wide angle, aperture a bit stopped down and trying to get everything within the DOF. Maybe its the odd perspectives, or maybe it needs a lower shooting height with much closer foreground to convey greater depth?

Just for info for those following here - I have started a new thread with my own 2nd versions, trying out the suggestions from this thread. Here is a link to the new thread - link

Yes, it does look like the effect of a compression. But I can see your adjustments clearly enough, thanks. I have tried a reworking myself which incorporates all the ideas demonstrated here, but with the advantage of a DNG file as the starting point.