We use rt 30 when going into Lancaster (rt 283 from Harrisburg runs into rt 30 before the Lancaster exit we use) or going to the outlets along rt 30 beyond the Lancaster exits. Once in a while we use 30 where it crosses rt 83 at York......any particular area you have a question about? Glad you are able to drive and get out and about to shoot........ -- Richard Soudershttp://www.flickr.com/photos/rsoud/

The strong color treatment is emphatic, and makes your first version seem undecided. This is much more confident. Diagonal sweep of color in the woman's coat draws the eye right to the heart of the picture. I think this version is more interesting and eye-friendly.Make sure you give the B&W a decent burial. -- Zin

Lovely mosaics, difficult light, tackled with the EP2 -- Honorine, aka Jill

I'm with Chris on this one, but maybe not all the way to square.Three is too many people for the atmosphere."Two's company; three's a crowd." The dynamic of the image and the viewers' potential identification with the subjects isn't optimal with three.Crop off the rightmost person, then shorten up on the left side 'til Chris starts to smile...and stop there.A problem of Righthand person is his/her body language -- bored and can't wait to move on, and that's transmitted to the viewer. The others have subtle hints of life in them, and seem interested in the view. One has a hand up to shade her eyes; the other has a hand to her mouth (probably) gasping, "OMG, what a stunning vista!"The brightness and contrast seem fine to me; it's a gray day.Don

Interesting shot. You might consider cropping off the top to lose that little high window, and that would considerably strengthen the implied sightline between the caller and The Watcher. -- Zin

BjornBuddwrote:How is the GH2 treating you?Regarding DR, specially in the shadows, do you see an improvement over the e510?What I usually do in landscape is expose for the sky and lift the shadows on the foreground, in lieu of a GND filter. My previous limit was about 2 stops of lifting, if I needed to go past that the shadow noise would start to become too visible.I just tried pushing the shadows of my highest contrast ISO 160 image by 3 stops and it's still holding up. There's also no banding to speak of, which makes life so much easier anyway--on the E-520 if I pushed too far I would start to get localized luma banding and large-scale chroma banding, the latter of which is a b*tch to clean up, since the best NR software doesn't seem to recognize it as noise.I also love that I'll be able to use ISO 1600 as casually as I've been using ISO 400 on the 520.I really like the GH2. I'm sure I'll like it even more when I can put my 11-22 on it though... 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 isn't exactly my cup of tea. Its image quality is good enough for me, I like the fast, silent AF and the OIS for casual video, but it's simply too slow aperture-wise.

... after some tone curve mayhem:-)My brain scans it like this:Nice photo (too much cars on the right and a bit busy at the left, though).Cheers,Claus.

As I wrote - wonderful (and superbly controlled) light, beautiful colors...AND incredible detail and a fine perspective (like 'looking up in wonder', for example).I also like the composition: the bottom area is important, IMO, so that the viewer doesn't get 'lost' with the perspective.See you next week here in this thread, Jill,best,Claus.

Zin,Nice one: First level - shapes and colors (good you left in the orange patch at the right corner; could even be bigger). Second level: Zoo, grass (simulates wildlife). Third level: a plate, shot from behind, simulates the simulation... Or something like that:-)Cheers,Claus.

... another opinion:looks great, colors are really fine, upper sky is a bit boring, so a 3:2 (or wider) crop wold look fine.OTOH, I can also imagine a very carefully 'croposed' square (still in color).Love it,Claus.

Good portrait work, JAF.Love the expression, the light, the crop.Technically fine PP, IMO.But, I have to say, after nearly a decade of looking at partially desaturated, brownish/sepia color portraits I've grown a bit tired of the effect. This is, of course, totally unrelated to your fine photograph - but you gave me the opportunity to express my highly irrelevant opinion:-)My best,Claus.

Hi M,I think the first one looks the most natural - the 'texture' of the water (bigger, smaller waves) blends nicely. In the third there are bigger ones in the middle FG and then more or less suddenly small ones in the middle BG (hope you know what I mean). One note: the boat now looks quite big for a small river like this...The second one - do I understand correctly: you want to cut a part in the middle and SHOW this by a big black zigzag line? No...BTW, I didn't comment on your original, IIRC, but I'd crop just the girl, trees and the river and get rid of the other side of the river...Cheers,Claus.

I just got an E-PL1 yesterday and have been figuring it out. Snapped this one of our pup at the park:I know we're supposed to go web-size, but I'm really proud of the sheer detail level present in the image at 100%: https://picasaweb.google.com/promit.roy/PuppyPics#5613429771076499714Feedback appreciated, I'm not much of a photographer yet.

I really like the affect of the backlighting, and it's an unusual view to take of a flower. A little disorienting actually, since it's not what I expect. The depth of field is so perfectly dialed in, too...

Hi & welcome!Strong image - superb colors, great light and a fine subject isolation. Creative vantage point:-)Sigh, the sparrows ate (!) most of our sunflowers before they could blossom out...Cheers,Claus.

RoelHendrickx wrote: ...Hard to choose.If you applied a touch of extra clarity and blacks levels to the colour version(according to Scott Kelby, that is a combination to make images pop instantly and for once he is not BS-ing), then I believe you could have the best of both worlds.Second that AND I#d use the slightly closer crop of the second one on the color version.Nice work, Carizi.Cheers,Claus.

Hi,oh, you edited your post (it read 'my first test shot' before...:-))Well, here's my critique:Nice: exposure, detail, focus. Good colors (grass, dog). Nice fur texture. And the pup, of course.Not so nice: the composition (you cut his rear part and one front leg) and the vantage point (shot from above).For a better dog photo you should either have the complete dog in the frame or go for a 'portrait style' head shot. I'd also go lower with the camera for a more natural view. Check the background: the walk on the left is a bit distracting.Good one for a first test shot!Cheers,Claus.

Great Detail, at ISO1600 I am impressed!

Thanks for all the great feedback! Upon seeing this photo, a friend said that I must have been "channeling" Edward Hopper. Well - clearly not in his league, but that was the sort of image I was seeing.CharlesB58wrote:About the only thing I could thing of doing differently was using a wider angle and getting a little closer to her, while still capturing the vista.I agree - unfortunately I was already at 14mm and couldn't have gone wider without changing lenses. The moment would have passed.Mr.NoFlashwrote:it would be nice to add the cam lens aperture and focal lentht used ( because this is a photography forumEXIF isn't visible, but from my original post:[E30 + 14-54, 14mm, f/16, 1/60sec]I thought it might be good to show exactly what the view looked like from her vantage point. This was shot the evening before. Can't you just visualize a wagon train traveling slowly across the scene?

I like the bright color contrasted with the black silhouette. I also like the way the animal seems to be trying to hide behind the tuft of grass. One suggestion: the two square areas that appear to be the tops of posts should be darkened to disappear or blend in with the rest of the signboard. I don't know how easy that would be to do in Picasa, though.