Ooops
I didn't read the 18-55 bit in your original post. Just thought that general 'kit lens' was required. As I don't have any 18-55 this is as close as it gets (and I think it can be said that the 18-35 isn't better than any of the 18-55).
BTW: Which one is 'the' standard 18-55, Mk I or Mk II?

Prieni

That's a very nice "kit lens" set! Well done, Peter.

Prieni

Taken with the FA J 18-35mm F4-5.6 AL (kit lens of the *istD)

[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/_RDP1817fc.jpg[/IMG]

It is one of three shots with this lens that made it in to the PPG. So I am proud to say that 1/6 of all shots with this lens in PPG are mine.

Peter, I just love that shot!

Prieni

It's not bad at all. I hope you don't mind me having a play with it. 2 variations I can suggest:

1. black to transparent gradient from the top, layer mode soft light:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/seasidepark_a.jpg[/IMG]

2. turn by 180 degrees and crop:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/seasidepark_b.jpg[/IMG]

Of course, as Jerome suggested, it can't do any harm to try some different angles. But I think there's something in this shot already. What do you think?

Prieni

Ok, now I see where you are coming from.
These DOF calculators (as well as the scales on the lens of old) are correct under certain assumptions. As far as I understand (and I haven't really dug into it) it has to do with how big an enlargement you are looking at from what distance. So while they are a good indicator, especially when comparing different settings, the absolute values might have a bit different meaning for your viewing/enlarging situation.

The small DOF for macro work is a well known and common problem.

Prieni

Ehm, :
This is a photo with a certain DOF. As you have taken it at f5.6 I would have thought it is reasonable for f5.6.
The DOF is there, whether you can calculate the depth or not. Even if you haven't got the slightest idea what DOF is, it will still be the same at this setting.

A bit like being a little child falling from the chair. It doesn't know anything about gravity but it is nonetheless subjected to it.

Perhaps you were after something else?

Prieni

I should get an appointment as well. Opening new tabs with each of the pictures and flicking back and forth I don't see a difference.
I do see the difference in my browser's address bar, though, so all is not lost yet.
I wonder what it is that makes you see a difference...

Prieni

Excellent, very nice shot. It would be absolutely stunning with a plain background (though that was apparently impossible).

Prieni

#1 is really wonderful, I think you had another one in the gallery of that series which I also liked very much.

#2 has a lot of potential, with a bit more of post processing I think it will be stunning. I would change the gamma curve a bit, balanced by contrast settings, maybe an S-curve and then darken the sky a bit. If you have taken it in RAW I could be tempted by having a go with SilkyPix and PS with the RAW file.
In this Picasa WEB folder I have some shots from the helicopter which also were taken around noon and I like how they turned out.

Prieni

Well, there was a surprise this morning. When I turned in yesterday evening I thought, oh, the competition ended, I should have logged in on my friend's computer...

So thanks Martin, for picking me as a winner. There was very strong competition and I think that Martin took pitty on me, knowing that I don't have a camera to take part in this round (and I don't know when it will come back).

I have posted a new theme before writing this, as I know that everyone is waiting for the next mission brief.

Now I will have a look at Martin's comments (it was a long scroll to get to the result). I'm sure that he has set a standard that will be hard to follow (especially since I will be away at the end of the competition period). I promise to do my best to get close to that standard.

Prieni