If you shoot RAW then this problem does not exist. You will only notice it on screen when shooting JPEG and not when printed. RAW completely bypasses any in camera processing so any errors in RAW are the fault of the person developing it or the RAW software (that one is very unlikely).

Current version, I'm much happier with this one. Still, there is something odd/wrong about the castle.

It is a little flat, especially on the dark side but haing looked at your quick attempt, that has far too much contrast. Looking at it on screen or printing it to view would be quite nasty as the dark parts are very dark and the saturation is though the roof!

Still has a little way to go, I'll go back to it later... Places to be...

[img]http://lh3.google.com/tyr.francoperlak/RtQhc0mj45I/AAAAAAAAApk/hQTMWcQ6O1g/s800/...%20Castle.jpg[img]

EDIT: I don't know why the link is not working http://picasaweb.google.com/tyr.francoperlak/York/photo#5103741056758047634

That is what I've got so far, much better transition, just needs a few adjustments.

My OH's uncle has a CS2 licence he doesn't use and has offered it up. I'll get it next time I'm down that way as well as the install disk. It is easier to navigate and find the tools you need. It is also rather handy as it supports 16-bit editing

I am going to see if final adjustments I want can be made in Lightroom.

I just got rid of the shadows by hand using selection and the fill light as if it is going to be 'dull' then it should only have very soft shadows not hard ones.

I only have Elements 2 so anything that requires masking and blending layers is harder to do (HDR is impossible as it only allows 8-bit editing, but that is a different story).

I have a gradient but can't find any way to mask foreground to transparent

I took this picture in York a week or two back and like how it is clear on one side and 'stormy' on the other.




I darkened one side to exaggerate this but I'm not too sure I'm happy with the result. I like the idea but I think I need to put a little more time into it. It is not perfect but some opinions on what I am trying to do would be nice.

(Removed because link no longer exists.)

I'm working on a better version as we speak but some input before I finish would be good.

There is detail but it is quite a dark gray with some parts approaching black. Than again my screen is currently calibrated to a printer so that doesn't help much

He who loves tests...

Please tell me where I can find a good 24 and 85 as all I can find are 28s and 50s...

Pentax really need a new 85, 135 and the expected DA* telephoto lenses.

The other thing is what you see on screen or on the back of the camera is not what is actually recorded. The camera's screen is not calibrated and has a relatively narrow tonal range. Your computer screen needs to be calibrated to show what you are actually getting.

My screen in calibrated by eye using prints from www.photobox.co.uk

When you order a set of prints they send you a calibration print with a range of tones which you can compare with your screen. It is not perfect but it is much better than nothing. After that you know what you are going to get from (their) prints and you know that it will tend to be accurate on other people's screens which are all different.