I did qualify my remarks with this ... ' My ideas on this are not intended to offer any defence of these particular shots in regards to realism'.

I accept the points that have been made - that is how people have reacted. When I make the comparison between this type of processing and 'traditional film photographic medium', I am not limiting it to colours. I'm thinking of the full dynamic range that our eyes encompass, as well as the level of small scale details we can detect and focus on.

In fact, looking at the histograms, these shots really do present a challenge to the camera - the data is blocked up on both sides. However they're processed, there needs to be some decision making on where to retain the quality and detail. The HDR - type approach may reduce the compromises this involves.

And here I was thinking that in the 'Your Photos' forum it was those posting replies that were going to say what they personally think !

I've valued all the comments so far, but .... personally.... well, I'm not involved in any competition, and I am not trying to sell the shots, so they have no commercial agenda or need to fulfil any specific role. So I can only judge them against my own previous work and against my aims in creating them.

Within these limits then, to me they represent a significant step and achievement, in regards the actual capture and then the techniques involved in the editing. The processing has evoked the atmosphere I experienced at the location, and some of the reaction I've seen suggests that some of this comes through to others also. So a success then.

But for me, everything is a learning process, and I don't want to be locked into just 'my way', although I can see that having consistency in a style is a positive. So I am looking forward to re-working some of the shots and getting more reaction.

I am very interested in exploring the question of how we interpret and define 'natural' & 'realistic' in the photographic medium. My ideas on this are not intended to offer any defence of these particular shots in regards to realism, but as a comparison to the more traditional presentation that people accept as 'natural', which I believe could in fact simply be a characteristic of the traditional film photographic medium that has become ingrained and interpreted as 'natural' and 'realistic' when in fact it is not at all.

Glad to have revived those memories. The park just drips with atmosphere and a nostalgic sense, and yes, down the bottom there in that walled area on a bright morning, when there's no one there, there is a whiff of the 'surreal' in the air. I'm glad this has come through in the shots.

By the way Jeff, so much remains the same here over such a long time, but check out what's happened to the front of the house - the left side of it in my 2nd shot here. I'm not very pleased with that.

Just to deal with the 'levelness' for now ! John's right in that you need to make a judgement on which line to make vertical, and I've made different choices that's true.

At this location there is no level ground at all, and the tree trucks and the walls have all subsided with the ground. The shots were taken using the K7's horizon indicator in the viewfinder, so all were 'level' at the shooting position, but not for any of them did this produce a result that 'appeared' level when taking in the whole scene. Hence the need for the choices during editing.

There is barrel distortion to contend with also, so its a judgment call. I don't personally feel that all the true horizons slope in the same direction. But I will gladly move them a degree to the right when I do the re-processings.

you wouldn't believe it John, I put those clipped whites back onto the clouds specifically thinking it made it look less like HDR, ie like a normal technical DR limitation that we would anticipate!! I think the slider involved in Photomatix Pro is ' smooth highlights'.

It will be interesting to try an alternative and simpler approach. I have been wondering if the characteristics of images that people commonly identify as 'natural' is in fact just those characteristics caused by DR limitations that we have all known and accepted as normal for so many years - newer techniques like HDR and other processing controls just contradict these ingrained memories, and whether or not they are more 'realistic', they are interpreted as unnatural. (By realistic I mean a try reproduction of all that the eye could detect as scanning around the scene)

Give me a day or so and continue here with alternative versions, as I said just using the most common tools that people choose.

Thanks for that feedback - I am now intrigued by these ideas of style and the processing options, and how this influences the outcome and people's perception.

I have felt for some time that the range of specific editing tools that we have at our disposal (or choose to use personally) can have a significant impact on the style and emphasis of different elements on the image (eg the amount and specific qualities of detail, depth, colours etc) that can be extracted from any single RAW file. In this way I guess I am saying that these processing choices can become integral to a 'style'.

I am going to re-do a couple of these shots using a more limited and more commonly used range of editing tools (say just ACR plus basic Photoshop edits) - lets see if the style changes, or appeals more widely !

Its a surprise to me to have my shots referred to as having a 'style', or an 'effect'. I hadn't thought of them in that sense, that is, as something specifically applied. But I appreciate the ideas. For this type of image I guess it has just become the way 'I do it', although with similar specific processing steps.

Actually Nos 1, 3 & 5 are in fact HDRs - 4 exposures with the RAW conversions and tone mapping done in Photomatix Pro 4. The 'chocolate box' shot (no 2 ) is only one frame, but the sky needed to be edited separately because of the much higher brightness and I wanted to apply a polariser filter (using Sagelight).

That has worked I'd say ! Exposures look nice to me - moody and deep, just what's needed. What iso were you on ? Quality doesn't seem to have sufferred much at all - maybe I can see some greeny haze in the backgrounds, but its nothing much - should be easy to knock back on the computer.

I appreciate your reaction Don - hmmm, maybe I should be giving Cadburys or Thorntons a call ??

My understanding is that diffraction effects are a factor of the angle of light rays onto the sensor plane - the greater the angle then the more effect is seen (the effect being reduced 'sharpness' - reluctant to use that word though!)

Smaller apertures cause greater angles of light rays, but at any constant aperture this angle is reduced as sensor size increases. So at larger sensor sizes we need smaller apertures to see the same amount of diffraction effects.

Hope this makes some sense, or at least provokes more discussion and a clearer explanation!!

Specifically, for our APS-C sized sensors, I have seen it suggested that f11 is a practical smallest aperture before diffraction would become apparent. I have not tested this myself on my DSLR - but I know from my 35mm neg days that I didn't get any better sharpness out of f16 than at f11, and DOF was not affected much either so long as focussing was good at or near the 'hypofocal' distance.