Hi All,

Well firstly I have to admit that I have posted these photos recently on another forum, however I had a bit problems doing that and they disappeared fast enough to not really getting any attention, I thought I would give it another go.

They do show part of what I love about the K100D (yep still have the K10D comming in any day now), It makes for some clean high ISO shots:

A few classics from Prague:
Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 34mm - 4 secs - f8.0 - ISO 200


Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 23mm - 1/6 - f3.5 - ISO 800


Some low light street scenes:
Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 17mm - 2.5 secs - f8.0 - ISO 200


Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 31mm - 1/20 - f4.0 - ISO 800


Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 45mm - 2.5 secs - f8.0 - ISO 200


Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 17mm - 6 secs - f8.0 - ISO 200


And 2 daylights to End the post:
Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 26mm - 1/4000 - f8.0 - ISO 200


Pentax K100D - Sigma 17-70 @ 63mm - 1/160 - f8.0 - ISO 200


Feedback anyone? My first round of real city scenes, what do you think?

[leaton]

Beautiful!
I like the first one best. What city is that?

[Duplo]

Beautiful!
I like the first one best. What city is that?

Thank you leaton
So do I...

It is Prague Castle in Prague

[clarenceclose]

Had a very interesting talk with another traveler who had spent quite a bit of time in Prague. A very photogenic city. Would love to go there someday with camera in one hand and wife in other.

[volosong]

Beautiful images. There are a few things I would do differently, but on whole, they are very nice. About the only thing that really rubs me wrong is the intense blue sky in the cathedral image (second image). It looks like you cut out the background and filled with solid blue, (with the gradation, I realize that the sky was not selected and filled with blue). It looks fake. But, perhaps that is what is really going on when you snapped the image.

Beautiful, classy city. Nothing like that around here.

[Duplo]

@Clarenceclose,
I would love to go back with my fiancée in hand too and will someday, but it will be during the weekdays... too many turists during weekends...

@Volosong,
Thank you.
Do you mind if I ask what you would have done different?
Hearing others comments on what could be done differently is my favourite way of learning.

have to agree prague is amazing... soo different from Greenland

Thanks again both of you

[slip]

Had a very interesting talk with another traveler who had spent quite a bit of time in Prague. A very photogenic city. Would love to go there someday with camera in one hand and wife in other.

And I hear the women are amazingly beautiful

great shots, I am glad to see that the 17-70 lens is a very capable one.
I do have to agree with volosong, the second shot with that intense blue sky could make someone believe that it was placed there, instead of natural.
I think the shot still rocks, though

BTW, what brought you to Greenland in the first place?
with its weather, I can't see it being a major destination for someone to live

cheers

[Duplo]

And I hear the women are amazingly beautiful

great shots, I am glad to see that the 17-70 lens is a very capable one.
I do have to agree with volosong, the second shot with that intense blue sky could make someone believe that it was placed there, instead of natural.
I think the shot still rocks, though

BTW, what brought you to Greenland in the first place?
with its weather, I can't see it being a major destination for someone to live

cheers

Thank you Slipchuck
first things first,

The sky did really look like that... taken around dusk... and lit up by the floodlight that you see on the castle as well....
No tweaking there.

Well it is indeed a capable lens, a bit much distortion at the wide end, but that said a great lens.

Well I work with business development and project management and has done so for a year.
The challenge, a fantastic nature, aurora borealis... the experience of being close to nature and feel the impact from it without any city to shield you off.
Skiing with a view to the ocean.. the list goes on....

I would not dream of staying here forever, but for a few years it is an amazing experience

Take a look at the pictures at my gallerypage they do tell a lot about what i like...

Take care

[volosong]

Do you mind if I ask what you would have done different?
Hearing others comments on what could be done differently is my favourite way of learning.

I hesitate because these pictures are so much better than anything I can do. But, since you are 'begging', I'll offer you my take.

There is nothing really 'bad' about any of the images. Just little things that I would try to see if it makes a better image. They really are quite good, except for the intense blue of the cathedral image. That's gotta be muted down quite a bit.

Image #1 (city view across the river) I'd crop a little bit off the top. Maybe it is that ol' stinkin' rule-of-thirds thing.

Image #2 (lit cathedral) Even if the sky really looked like that at the time, it is awful and looks fake. Too overpowering and detracts from the cathedral. It's an interesting church, but I find myself not wanting to look at the image because the intense blue hurts my eyes.

Image #3 (lonely street scene) a pretty good image. If I did anything, it would be to play with perspective a bit. The foreground buildings slope up and away from the center of the image. I'd try to straighten them to see if it makes a more attractive image. You were obviously on the second or third floor shooting downward toward the street.

Image #4 (pedrestrians out for the evening) pretty good as is. I wouldn't do anything to that particular image.

Image #5 (riverfront buildings and bridge) rule-of-thirds again, too much sky; and I'd rotate counterclockwise to make the roofline of the buildings 'flat'. The bridge will then slope up to the right, but might make a more balanced image.

Image #6 (view across a bridge) I like, but might try cropping out the yellow building on the right hand edge.

Image #7 (river view) rotate counter-clockwise to make horizon 'flat' and the moon/sun is just a big blob. No shape or definition at all. Way overexposed at that point. I might try cropping from the top to just show a hint of the moon/sun, just the lower limb. Might work, then again, might not. As is, the 'blob' detracts from a very attractive image.

Image #8 (daytime waterfront buildings) one of my favorites, but the riverfront buildings appear to have too much post processing sharpening when compared to the somewhat hazy hillslope in the background. Hazy sky in background, crystal clear sky in near ground. Something doesn't match.

Now, after ripping your images, I'm fearful of posting any of my images here. Really, your pictures are way better than what I can do and you should feel good about them.

[clarenceclose]

If the blue of the sky behind the cathedral is too much, go into Image/Adjust/replace color, click on the sky then double click on the bottom color box and slide the bubble down some to maintain the color while subduing it some. Worth a shot to salvage a good picture.

[Duplo]

Hi Volosong,

Thanks for the very thorough comments, I really do appreciate them a lot.
I have commented belwo you comment to each picture:

I hesitate because these pictures are so much better than anything I can do. But, since you are 'begging', I'll offer you my take.

I do really appreciate you comments and these pictures are my first real city shoot that included low light photography... I think they turned out well, but there are still a lot to learn. One of the things about photography I do like is that learning is a continuous process.

There is nothing really 'bad' about any of the images. Just little things that I would try to see if it makes a better image. They really are quite good, except for the intense blue of the cathedral image. That's gotta be muted down quite a bit.

I agree, one of the things I have to learn is that true to the scene is not necessarily all good.

Image #1 (city view across the river) I'd crop a little bit off the top. Maybe it is that ol' stinkin' rule-of-thirds thing.

The rule of thirds... I love it and hate it... I tend to break it a little too often, but did it intentionally in this case. after trying out both options.

Image #2 (lit cathedral) Even if the sky really looked like that at the time, it is awful and looks fake. Too overpowering and detracts from the cathedral. It's an interesting church, but I find myself not wanting to look at the image because the intense blue hurts my eyes.

Point taken... something to play with on a rainy evening

Image #3 (lonely street scene) a pretty good image. If I did anything, it would be to play with perspective a bit. The foreground buildings slope up and away from the center of the image. I'd try to straighten them to see if it makes a more attractive image. You were obviously on the second or third floor shooting downward toward the street.

I were standing at a bridge actually.. another task for a tainy evening

Image #4 (pedrestrians out for the evening) pretty good as is. I wouldn't do anything to that particular image.

One of my own favourittes from the trip along with picture 1.

Image #5 (riverfront buildings and bridge) rule-of-thirds again, too much sky; and I'd rotate counterclockwise to make the roofline of the buildings 'flat'. The bridge will then slope up to the right, but might make a more balanced image.

Point taken.

Image #6 (view across a bridge) I like, but might try cropping out the yellow building on the right hand edge.

Agree could be worth a try...

Image #7 (river view) rotate counter-clockwise to make horizon 'flat' and the moon/sun is just a big blob. No shape or definition at all. Way overexposed at that point. I might try cropping from the top to just show a hint of the moon/sun, just the lower limb. Might work, then again, might not. As is, the 'blob' detracts from a very attractive image.

I hear you.... not enought DR to do that.... a ND grad filter would might have made it possible.

Image #8 (daytime waterfront buildings) one of my favorites, but the riverfront buildings appear to have too much post processing sharpening when compared to the somewhat hazy hillslope in the background. Hazy sky in background, crystal clear sky in near ground. Something doesn't match.

Actually this was not sharpened at all... only slight levels and curves. this is as close to an out of camera picture as it gets when shooting RAW. what makes it confusing might be that there is quite a gap between the building and the hill, which might create the effect you mention.

Now, after ripping your images, I'm fearful of posting any of my images here. Really, your pictures are way better than what I can do and you should feel good about them.

Ido feel good about them, some of them at least. number 1,4 and 8 are what I would call decent images.
Thanks for the compliments and critics... and again I walue your feedback.

[Duplo]

If the blue of the sky behind the cathedral is too much, go into Image/Adjust/replace color, click on the sky then double click on the bottom color box and slide the bubble down some to maintain the color while subduing it some. Worth a shot to salvage a good picture.

Thanks for the tip
I am going to try that out...