Following Carl's suggestion, this is the little JPEG from the OP, loaded into ACR in PSE10, white balance set to Auto, followed by Blacks 10, Brightness -20, Contrast +20, Clarity +40:




Cheers.
Philip

In these shots I like the compositions and their interesting skies. However, just a subjective point - everything below the sky is a just bit too dark for me.

Cheers.
Philip

But it might go down like a LED balloon.

Cheers.
Philip

Nice evening colours in the hills and the sky.

Just a suggestion - if the objective was to show the campsite in its location, perhaps you could have moved a bit, so as not to chop off the front of the camper van and to start the wall at the bottom of the photo closer to a third in the composition.

Cheers.
Philip

Quote: "No one is making a bad camera or a bad lens or a bad light or a bad camera bag or a bad sensor" - this seems to sum up his "rant", and I think that the principle point there is difficult to contest.

However, I would add that, considering aspects such as: what one wants from the equipment, what one is trying to achieve, how much one can spend, and when comparing similar items, some of those things might be less good than others.

Cheers.
Philip

I agree with you on all points there Nigel, as I suggested in my previous post.

It just so happens that I was in Maidenhead last Sunday, taking a few shots around the road bridge over the Thames. The lens was the SMC Pentax-F 28mm (~25 years old?) with a Kenko MC UV filter, but I forgot to take a lens hood. This shot was towards the sun after 4 p.m. - not sure if it's flare (it does look like it, e.g. on the bridge under the nearest lamp), or my error in exposure, or probably a mixture of both (resampled JPEG OOC):




However, it does not seem to be a serious problem - this is the same JPEG after a few tweaks in PaintShop Pro:




I should have remembered the hood though.

Cheers.
Philip

The photos shown above are not the results of a fair test - if they had been, they might show smaller differences. The exposure changes by -1 EV from #1 to #2, and by -1 EV again from #2 to #3 - this is not responsible for the flare but it does exaggerate its appearance in the first two. Also the camera position changes for each shot - it is tilted downwards more in #2 and #3, and it is closer to the fruit tree in #3; these changes alter the angle of the incident light, and that can have a significant effect on the amount and appearance of any flare that might occur.

The principle is OK - it is sensible to use a lens hood to reduce the risk of flare. However, the advances in lens coating technology have already reduced that risk to very low in most cases so, for me, always using a lens hood is more important for the protection it gives the lens from the odd accidental knocks against a wall, fence, door, etc. Also for the latter reason, I usually use the rubber types.

Cheers.
Philip

I agree with Mark, Nigel - all very nicely done except #2, in which the sky/cloud colours do not look quite right to me.

Cheers.
Philip

Are you referring to something like a polariser, Carl? There is a HMC UV filter on mine all the time and I always use the hood with no problem. The original metal cap has been left in the box from new (in case I ever sell/exchange the lens!) and I use a cheap eBay plastic clip-on cap.

Cheers.
Philip

I'm pleased that you like the photos, Nigel, and I hope you know that I'm really grateful for all your observations. You are one of the few people kind enough to respond to my posts here - please do keep saying it as it is, and I will try to keep on experimenting to include more unconventional viewpoints.

Thanks again for giving your time and comments.

Cheers.
Philip