If you have Photoshop CS3, there's a dedicated B+W conversion tool in "image > adjustments". This gives a good amount of control over the tonality of the image. From there, you can still end up with a rather flat shot. Personally I use Curves and Levels adjustment in order to give the shot more pop. Note that if this is pushed too far, noise/artifacts can be induced, as seen in the sky of the conversion by MattMatic.

There are many techniques available to create a B+W image. The best thing to do is source some online tutorials and try them out. I like www.theradiantvista.com - I think there's a video tutorial on there dedicated to this sort of thing.

Nice shot by the way Simon.

Toby

The Sigma 12-24mm is also an option, which again is more expensive but can be used on a film or full frame body unlike the 10-20. It's also said to have slightly better sharpness. I very nearly bought a used one, but instead chose the 10-20. I haven't looked back, it is a very impressive lens. Fingers crossed you can get hold of a good copy.

Toby

Pretty sure that's not the only difference.
I think you'd struggle to achieve the same quality of image that the D300 produces, however much time is spent in Lightroom.
I know I'd consider a Nikon switch if the pennies weren't an issue.
Brand loyalty is a strange thing and I'll never understand why people get so wound up in it - I guess it all comes down to money.

A polarizer's essential in my view. It increases colour saturation and reduces glare, particularly in foliage. Also, if you're shooting bodies of water/waterfalls you really will see the difference. I myself am not massively interested in darkening blue skies, as I usually shoot when the sun's going down or coming up.

I guess it depends on your shooting style. I've seen a number of examples of varying polarization across an image, generally I think you can get away with it.

I'm awaiting delivery of a Hoya Pro 1 (edit: for my 10-20), like this: link

Toby

A week back I came across a used Sigma 12-24mm in the Chester branch of the London Camera Exchange. I seriously considered buying this before getting the 10-20 instead. It's up for a sale at £300, might be worth checking out.

Benefits over 10-20:
1. Very low barrel distortion.
2. Can be used on a full frame/film camera.
3. Slightly better sharpness (noted in some reviews but not massively sharper).

Drawbacks:
1. More CA.
2. Not as wide.
3. More expensive.
4. Uses larger filters i believe.

(All of this is from memory, don't hold me to it)

I haven't extensively trialed my 10-20 yet, it seems very sharp, but you've made me want to really test it thouroughly.

Toby

I bought a Sigma 10-20 yesterday! I scoured the internet for hours trying to find a good deal (annoyingly the sigma prices went up a little while ago). Best price I could find was about £315, from a reputable online dealer. It may be worth having a punt with onestopdigital, but I chose not to, for the same reasons that you mentioned.

Anyway - the London Camera Exchange in Manchester is where I got mine from.
£299, and I was able to test the lens to make sure it was a good copy.
Based on all my 'research', this is the best deal out there at the moment.

Toby

I use my K10d for landscape shooting and get most use out of my mkI kit lens. As image resolution and sharpness is paramount to me, would I see a decent improvement with the mkII version? For the sake of 60 quid it must be worth buying? Right?! (SRS @ £60 - Is that the best price available?)

Would I be better off putting more money towards say the 16-45?

I appreciate that this has been discussed, and while I have searched and read some posts about it, I haven't found a definitive answer.

Toby

Thanks for the info Matt. I'll look into those options. Also I'm interested to hear what actual filters you'd recommended to get me going. 2 stop? 3 stop? soft? hard?

As I initially mentioned, I'm currently using bracketed exposures and manually blending them. I'm happy with this technique, but I want to try using filters, really as a matter of interest. I understand both techniques have limitations, being able to do both is something that'll be beneficial to my shooting.

Cheers
Toby

Hi all.

I'm thinking about getting some fairly cheapish graduated ND filters mainly as a learning experience. I shoot landscapes and currently rely on manual exposure blending to get the dynamic range I require. I like the idea of achieving this 'in-camera', plus manual blending doesn't work that well with moving subjects (clouds, water etc)
Has anybody got any experience with the Cokin filters? I hear colour casts are a problem? Which combinations are most useful, hard/soft/density? Also what size system do I need to go for? Currently I use a Pentax K10d and 18-55mm, I'm also looking to buy a Sigma 10-20mm sometime soon, so obviously I'd like to get a system that works with all my lenses.
Thanks for any help.

Toby

Just found this:

http://www.pentaximaging.com/customer_care/show_firmware?firmId=8793673

says version 1.10 onwards fixed the vertical stripe problem.

Looks like I know what I need to do...