[water]

From my cycle run yesterday.A view over the Forth to the "Kingdom of Fife".I'm running into real restrictions only having 18-125 lens in the sense that I want wider while being able to have elements in the foreground closer.To get that wide 'feel' i'm ending up framing shots knowing I'll be cropping top and base.I am caught in a dilemma gear wise as I am really tempted to go Olympus for it's small,but very comfy,bodies and lenses.The replacement for the E510 is due September I read and maybe the dynamic range and tendency to abruptly clip highlights will be sorted.
Anyway,this is the 20D and 18-125@18mm:

[stepheno]

The sky forms about 75% of the image yet there is not really enough in the sky to keep interest.Hope you don't mind - I cropped some sky, desaturated a little and burnt in some of the cloud.

[Larne]

I like stephano's edit, it is an improvement. Good picture

[AQ]

Know how you feel about Olympus. I have a Canon 40d now but recently opened the case with an old OM1 and OM2 in it. I had forgotten how tiny and portable these and thier lenses were.

Trouble is with digital for the same pixel count smaller sensors = more noise

[Sparkymark]

Good shot, which works even better with stepheno's edit. We use similar setups - I have a 10D and the 18-125mm. I also have a 5D with the 16-35mm, and it's so much wider, and much better for landscape stuff, but it does have the advantage of being full frame. Maybe try a Sigma 10-20mm?

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by Sparkymark

I also have a 5D with the 16-35mm

Not wishing to hijack Water's thread but I too have a 5D which currently I use with a Sigma 12-24 and a Canon 17-40. I'm considering selling these two and getting the 16-35 MkII - what are your opinions of it?

[Dabhand16]

Nice shot - I also thought the saturation in the original was too high and like the others, I like stephen's edit.

[Sparkymark]

Stepheno - mine's the 16-35mm Mk I, which I've read reviews that say it's perhaps not as sharp as the Mk II (but it's significantly cheaper second hand). I love it - if you look at my Flickr page, most of the trees/daffodils pictures in late February were taken with it.

[Willow5075]

I 'd like to see the cropping but keep the saturation - sorry my editing skill not necessarily up to the job!

[stepheno]

Originally Posted by Sparkymark

if you look at my Flickr page, most of the trees/daffodils pictures in late February were taken with it.

Appreciated

[water]

Originally Posted by stepheno

The sky forms about 75% of the image yet there is not really enough in the sky to keep interest.Hope you don't mind - I cropped some sky, desaturated a little and burnt in some of the cloud.

When I 'save for web' I usually open up the file and give it a little boost in Saturation as the colours always seem muted compared to the full Tiff.I definately overdone this one though.Here is another version,with a crop on the sky as suggested but not quite as tight as I like the white 'fan' behind the darker clouds.See what you think:

[Larne]

I think that works well.

I'm interested to read your comment about the difference in saturation between TIF and JPEG. I have had problems lately with a couple of pictures I posted to the gallery looking very different to how they appear on my PC during editing and you have me wondering if it is the same effect.

[spacepacker]

Much better, water.

[AQ]

I quite like the houses in the most saturated one. It makes them seem as if they are bathed in sunlight. The actual colour may need a touch of adjustment but the efect is OK

[water]

Originally Posted by Larne

I think that works well.

I'm interested to read your comment about the difference in saturation between TIF and JPEG. I have had problems lately with a couple of pictures I posted to the gallery looking very different to how they appear on my PC during editing and you have me wondering if it is the same effect.

I think it's to do with 'colour space'.In camera and photoshop I'm using Adobe RGB or whatever but when I 'save for web' it is automatically sRGB or whatever..When I have saved for web and re-opened in photoshop to give the saturation a tweak I save that file and close it.I then just double click on it and it opens in Picture Viewer and shows how it will appear on the web etc.This is my 'method' as I find it sorts the problem out.However,there may be a way to avoid the problem in the first place,I just am not aware of it.There has been threads about this if you use the search function on Pixalo.Or maybe someone with the knoweledge will read this and put you,and me,right)