Amersham; a famous stomping ground of mine years ago!

The Old Town is a treasure house of old buildings, but impossible to photograph, being cluttered up with and spoiled by parked cars 365 days a year. This is the very first and only street-level shot I've ever managed to get of the place.

It was taken with a 205mm (equiv.) telephoto lens.

Then you did a remarkable job, as usual!

Awesome shot! Stay well!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

At the far end of the Metropolitan Line...

Agreed. One generally has to aim upwards to miss the parked cars.

Which I was expecting to have to do, albeit knowing that it's usually obvious with pictures of old buildings that omit the street level that they've been composed in that way to hide eyesores (parked cars, modern shopfronts etc.) and which tend to be unsatisfying. So I was quite surprised to find a view (it needed the long telephoto lens which I'd packed specially) in which the ground floors and street itself could be included.

Having said that, your picture, above, isn't bad, though I'd have added some detail to the sky. That side of Market Square faces North and the fronts of those building never, I believe, get any sun on them.

I've driven or walked down that street a thousand times over the years, so finally to get a picture there was for me quite something.

Thanks for posting your wonderful picture to

www.ipernity.com/group/buildings

You were indeed lucky to find a photogenic parking space.

Unlike you, I never add Shepperton skies: mine is a record of the weather as it was.
But you're right in thinking there was a better sky across the road.

The sky in my shot, above, was the real one. But real skies tend to become overexposed, and may need a bit of manipulation (darkening, contrast raising) to look how they did in reality.

Addendum: I no longer do (the obviously false) Shepperton skies. Nowadays, where the real sky is hopelessly "blown" or overexposed, or there's a large area of blank sky in the picture, I'll use a "stock" sky with some clouds in it, but BLEND it 50/50 or so with the real sky, and that gives a very realistic-looking result that isn't wholly artificial. That's particularly recommended where there are leafless trees, which don't do well when the sky behind them is replaced en bloc.

I don't have your expertise, and probably not the right software.
I'm still using your Elements 2.0.

So am I still using Elements 2.0. It has all the functionality I (or you) need, including the ability to replace and blend skies. To do that with Elements 2.0 isn't rocket science. It's so straightforward that I could talk you through it.

The only thing new that I've used in the last 16-odd years is RAW development software, which greatly extends the scope of what can be produced with a digital camera and the variety of subjects and lighting that can be turned into pleasing pictures. But only with a digital camera that has a RAW file option, which yours may not.

I've just remembered you gave me a book about it and I never got round to reading it!
I've just found it on my bookshelf and moved it to my bedside table.I hope it's not too technical.

Read it (or any technical manual) in bed and you'll be asleep in seconds. It's for reading next to your computer while you do the things yourself, step by step. From memory, it does tell you how to replace skies but only very broadly. To do it convincingly and well you need to be familiar with e.g. layers, but as I say, I could talk you through it. It isn't so difficult.