Number three is my favourite here as well, but no tweaking of the curves, please, as I think it is just right.

One and four are also to my liking, the others might need some PP (I like Gareth's dirty monotone suggestion). Something along those lines:

[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/IMGP7470pu.jpg[/IMG]

Here I would have wished for flat light...
Probably not the best example but it shows the direction I would go with these.

Prieni

The lack of sharpness I only can see in the "in thread" pics. When I look at them in the bigger size they are fine.
I wouldn't call them flat either and believe without doubt what Andrew says about the histogram being filled. And I think you got yourself some good shots here, Andrew.
My favourite is the last one, great shot!

The first one also is very nice, would have worked a bit closer as well. The contrast in the second one is great, blue - yellow and the different tones of yellow. I like it.

The shot "charred" is probably the best abstract of the crop, for the "flakes" I would have wished for a closer shot, more macro like.

So not a bad bounty here (and I already had a quick look at part II).

Prieni

Iceblinker, this is strange, as George says he cannot download an up-to-date v3 that supports the K20D. And that would be a new version, well after the K20D came out. And I find that a bit strange.

Prieni

Stefan, stuff the blown highlights. This is a great image, no matter whether it is a photo or other image.

I have tried, though, to make the highlights a bit less dominating. I don't think it improves the image much, though...

[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20user/_IGP6046-Edit2.jpg[/IMG]

Prieni

George, that sounds very strange. Before the Pro version came out I had no problems with the K20 files. On the Mac there is no Pro (yet) and it works fine there as well.
Did you buy from ISL directly? If so it might be worth contacting Silkypix UK (http://www.silkypixuk.com/)
The latest version on their site (for v3) is 3.0.34.1 and I would be very surprised if that wouldn't support the K20D. Try downloading it and if it doesn't accept your licence key you could contact them (or ISL).

Prieni

Well, at least on the second look you would see that some PP was applied here, they don't look that natural. You might not easily guess what has been done but you can see that something was done.
In this case I was lucky to feel similar to you what the 'right' look would be on this one.

Wouldn't have thought that for a minute. Luddites wouldn't touch a DSLR
with a barge pole, would they?

Prieni

Martin,

yes I do know your point of view. It was a bit tongue in cheek from me.

And looking at my last example I could understand when someone would feel that to be over the top. It is (and I think it has to be; this is what I had in mind when taking the shot).

I agree that there is a lot of stuff out there where I think that PP has gone too far. But that is a too far for me only. And others might feel different.

Will, thanks for the thumbs up on these. And I know what you mean on the banal shots...

Prieni

Martin,

I might be the exception from the exception, then...

These are some recent acceptances:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20user/_PRI7427fc-1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20user/_PRI7430fc.jpg[/IMG]

I have added them in the HDR category although they are more pseudo-HDRs. And I hope they don't fall in your PPG category.
I have to admit that sometimes I find the obvious over the top PP quite fitting, like in this one (also in PPG):
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20user/_PRI7750fc.jpg[/IMG]

John (Goliath): Where does 'obvious' PP start and where does it end? Why is the PP that a bunch of Japanese engineers did (i.e. that happens in camera) any better than what I do from the RAW shot at my computer?
All my images have had some PP treatment...

But of course it is your right to vote according to your taste and I certainly have no problem with that.

Prieni

I second that.

Maybe you could reload the 'neated' image to your imaging software and put it as a new layer on the original version. When you then flatten the image and save it should have the EXIF intact again.
I would also think that noise reduction shouldn't be a problem. There are quite a few images in the PPG that show post processing of various degrees. Also HDR images are admissible now.

Good luck!

Prieni

It could be that, it could be me not getting the point of the nail through it.
From the composition it should be nice enough, there is some interesting subject in it, it is focussed well enough, the lighting is good... Somehow it doesn't have an impact on me.
The second one is in a different league altogether for me.

Prieni