Since several shots were taken at various settings, you could sort the sky with a straightforward exposure blend. Either way, I much prefer this version.

Interesting! I actually added a bit more contrast, and increased the saturation and yellowness of the greens in the first shot. Straight out of HDR, it seemed a bit cool and neutral to me, given it was early evening. I was aiming for the richness of colours in the second shot but seems like I overdid it. The original shot is here.

The second shot, I actually darkened the foreground / path a bit. I had previously pulled up the shadows a bit as you did, but thought I was killing the atmos a bit and the grain was starting to show. So I knocked it back again, possibly too far!

All this tweaking and adjusting of colour and brightness gives me a headache to be honest. I'm very indecisive and find it hard to draw a line in the sand and stop fiddling with my pictures in Photoshop.

85/2 is absolutely superb IMHO. There can be a tiny bit of fringing wide open, but not much at all and only on really high contrast edges, so easy to mop up in LR etc. At f2.8 it's just perfect and lovely for portraits that drift from a smooth background blur to a sharp subject. (I don't agree with this 'portrait lenses mustn't be too sharp' rubbish).

Because it's a 49mm thread, and it's a long lens, I thought I would try the DA40mm lens hood on it. After doing this I noticed that it performs like it's on f2.8 without having to stop it down, allowing you to use it in Av mode rather than the annoying green button metering. Stepping down rings would probably do the same thing!

I've had the Samyang 85mm, and I just like the 85/2 better. It's still quite fast, but it's a lot smaller.

Dukes Quarries shot on the HDR1 setting. Would be interested in whether people find this 'natural'.




Non HDR shots showed either totally blown highlights/sky, or correct highlights and sky amidst blackness!

Although film shots (Ektar 100) fared a lot better.




If these shots are looking dark I will know I can't trust the monitor on this Mac...

Well, I don't know... if I look into the garden right now, I can see trees where the darker interior parts of the vegetation look extremely dark, and the bright sky makes me see them as almost black (although if I peer really hard, I can tell they're not).

I don't think that's the objective - JR set out pretty clearly that we are talking about what we consider a 'natural landscape shot', and when he says 'here's my interpretation', it doesn't much sound like he's implying there's only one correct answer (his).

Looks about right to me. That's what I'd see as natural - I can see very dark areas within the vegetation, the midtones don't look too heavy and dark, and the pebbles are very light without going too white. But there are a few completely white touches (a couple of flowers, the window frames) - again this is what you'd expect to see.

These are really good Roger! You've got a great eye. I like the man obscured by the pillar, with the carefully framed '37' being given a strange significance by how you've framed it. I like the watery reflections in the first shot too.

That's probably because they're not yet 'mid-priced'

Excellent! Seeing those sticklebacks takes me back to my childhood - cheap nylon net and jam jar in hand!

DA35/f2.4 on Pentax P30n and old ISO400 C41 film - programme mode but probably f4 to f5.6 I guess -




DA35/f2.4 wide open on Pentax K7 -