There is no point in under-exposing to avoid high iso as "pushing" the exposure up in post-processing will end up with greater & more uneven noise being introduced, maybe even some banding too.

Using selective colour on brown eyes doesn't work for me. They need to be vivid blue or green for the effect to have any impact.

Gorgeous light, especially in the last shot.

Wouldn't catch me up at 5 on my day off though !

There is no right and wrong in photography Amin. It's merely the way I would have approached it, as Mikew suggested before me & that is low & wide to distort the scale & perspective a little. It may have been totally unworkable that way due to the background etc.

It is my opinion that if I am to take images of static objects such as this, that I should present a view that would not be picked up by the casual observer. This could be achieved in any manner of ways, odd angle of view, picking up on juxtaposition, showing a play of light/shadows, showing a concentrated (cropped) view & many others. Sorry to bring Pauly into it again, but he does this very well, not just with inanimate objects but with people too.

There are plenty of exceptions to this obviously, when recording moments for posterity, formal portraits, wildlife etc.

As for inspiration, my approach is somewhat similar to Mikew, where I will generally wander & watch out for opportunity, usually in new or unfamiliar surroundings. All to often though I will exxplore through the viewfinder & not even fire the shutter.
I too find it much easier when I have a concept in my head, I cannot always technically achieve that concept to the standard I strive for but it does spark the creative mind somewhat. I do miss participating in the competitions here for that very reason.

Try aminstar, he may have one or two left thread here

Last one has most potential for me too. Bringing out a little more detail in the sky & wet sand & a tweak to the composition is all that's needed for a keeper.

Alot of the others are perfectly decent holiday snaps but I think you know yourself that had you put a little more thought into them you could have come away with much better results.
Alot of people would not have even looked twice at the buoy on the sand, but it could have been used to much more dramatic effect. By using the longer focal length you've flattened the perspective somewhat, whereas as Mikew says it would have benefitted from being shot with a wide angle from a closer distance. This would have exaggerated the perspective & scale.
It also looks like you had decent light & skies whilst at Harlech castle & could have made more of it.

It's easy to criticise & I know myself that you have to be in the mood to think about composition & put the effort in at the time to get the image exactly how you picture it in your head. Alot of the time if I'm sightseeing with friends or family I will take the camera but very rarely use it, as I know that others in my group will not have the patience to humour me whilst I take photos.

Bob

Missed this thread, I've posted on Flickr Mike.

I don't think it's working too well with your usual approach to detail shots. You've spoiled us with beautifully sharp images of this style so it's jarring toi see the LB effect in these. If you can combine a detail in plane of focus, against a smoothed out background I think you may find your niche with the LB.

Plus it's getting darker earlier, the LB effect on highlights is its best attribute for me.

It kind of defeats the object for me. There is a wealth of quality Pentax fit glass around. There may be some lenses that cannot be matched by a m42 or k mount alternative, but mounting these in front of a cheap glass element is bound to compromise that advantage by a fair margin.

It may be due to the large amount of images in one post Andy.

My fave would be the sleepy warthog.

Do these not contain a glass element though to correct infinity focus ?