No contest - DA 18-135mm on a K-5 - compact, versatile, and dust & water resistant.

Philip

Gary, sorry there have been no comments yet, so here are some opinions. Apart from the signature on the photos (a practice that I loathe for its distraction), I like the bee on flower shots. I also like the perspective shot of the pylons, but I would probably try to clone out the thick cable going across just above the horizon. The horse picture looks a bit pale (over-exposed or desaturated?) to me, although obviously I did not see the real thing, but I would expect him to look more like this -

[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/Reworked%20Photos/Horse-1.jpg[/IMG]

Cheers.

Philip

G3 with filter.

Philip

John, I like your HDR treatment of both images, which is very effective and not overdone. However, the feature I find to be distracting is the unnatural distortion, presumably the result of having to use a wide-angle lens to capture the shots. In "Open Door" my eye is drawn to the bottom right, where the right-hand door is twisted around clockwise. Here in "Lecterns and Ladders", both the main arch and the roof beams being twisted over anticlockwise detract from an otherwise pleasing image. These are, of course, just my personal opinions, and this effect doesn't seem to have troubled other contributors.

Cheers.

Philip

Have you got just the one kit lens, 18-55mm, with your K-r? If so, and funds are limited, a good option would be the other kit lens, 50-200mm. SRS in Watford have several used ones, from £69 to £99, with 6 month warranty.

Philip

It's a very good lens, Ross, and it makes the dslr quite a compact set-up. The f/2.8 aperture gives quite a bright view, making manual focusing not too difficult. I'm sure that you will enjoy using it - on an APS-C dslr it is almost like having a standard lens (F equivalent to 42mm).

Philip

Thank you, Mike.

Three more Pentax-A 28mm garden centre shots -
7.Glossy leaves:
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2716r1.jpg[/IMG]
8.Compare the meerkats:
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2727r1.jpg[/IMG]
9.A hanging basket:
[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/IMGP2729r1.jpg[/IMG]

Philip

The shape and form of the abstract Arcelormittal Orbit Tower seem to resemble those of the Statue of Liberty, with its flowing robes and spiky head-dress, and Jamie's great photo seems to help reinforce this similarity -

[IMG]http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb327/MrB154/PUser/Tower1.jpg[/IMG]

Philip

The fundamental meaning of "photography" (as you yourself quoted) is "drawing with light".

That meaning DOES NOT in any way PRESCRIBE THE METHODS used to produce its result - the "photograph".

A photograph is the end product of light capture, image processing, and creativity.

A photographer has the freedom of choice to use ANY technology available to him, along with his creative mind, to make a photograph.

So the answer, to what seems to have had the intention of being a fatuous question, has to be "Yes".

If a photographer wishes to alter something in his image, computer software allows him the creative freedom to do so.

Philip

You don't take a photograph, you make it. (Ansel Adams)

This is a description of the true meaning of the word "photograph". However, the meaning of the word does not in any way prescribe the methods used to create its products, so anything that anyone does involving light to create any image is a valid photographic activity.



This is a description of two of the commonly used methods of capturing light, not the production of photographs. Photographic film and image sensors do not produce photographs - they simply record light levels (photons) - either by photochemical or photoelectric processes respectively. The photograph is produced by processing the recorded information - either by further chemical methods, or by computer processing. This must involve human intervention - either to apply the chemicals appropriately (or to design a machine to do so automatically), or to use software on a computer (or to programme a machine, the Jpeg engine in a camera, to do so automatically) - to reveal a printed or projected photograph.

However, definitions of photography usually also include its description as an art form. That is because it is generally accepted (at least it is amongst those who take it seriously) that the human intervention in the production of a photograph is not simply to produce something that is a 2-dimensional clone of a 3-dimensional scene. There is more to it than that, usually to do with human interaction and communication; the photographer's aim might be, for example, one or more of these ideas - to tell a story, to provoke thoughts, to convey feelings, to express emotions, to describe shape, form, space and time.
Many photographers spend time enhancing - in the darkroom and/or on the computer - the record of light that they captured through the camera, in order to realise an image that communicates their own particular vision.

It seems clear to me that the technical skills of capturing light and processing the recorded information, together with the application of creativity, are all required to produce good photographs. It is to be hoped that a competent judge would recognise the contribution of those three aspects to a photograph, when assessing its quality relative to others.

Philip