An easier way still.
De-saturate the yellow channel only to about -35.
Then re-open the saturation pallette and saturate the master by the same amount.
The de-saturation of the yellow will reduce the greenness of the grass, which, I think, is a bit too saturated anyway, but won't significantly affect the brickwork.
The re-saturation will bring the grass back to the way it was but the brickwork has become redder.
Reducing saturation in the yellow channel is a simple way of adjusting the colour of grass in most shots.

I've uploaded a slightly different take on it to Trev.
What you have here is lens distortion rather than it just not being straight.
You could correct the verticals a bit but it won't rectify all of the leaning elements as they're at differing distances from the camera and therefore leaning at different angles.
I've cropped, not quite successfully, the grey building on the RHS and corrected, to a certain extent, the pink building. The more you pull the buildings, the more the lamppost leans over. I think that it's a situation where correcting verticals isn't really going to succeed.
We see perspective and foreshortening in reality anyway, so I'm not keen on removing them artificially.
I also cropped the bottom and LHS, which gets rid of the railing and the distorted area on the left.
I can see why Trev decided to remove the car but I've left it.
I think that a person walking their dog might have been more photogenic but it does make something of a focal point!
Hope this helps.
Bren.

I read that wrong then!

I don't think that you were wrong to expose for the cathedral at the expense of the sky.
I suppose the best way would have been to take two shots, one exposed for the cathedral and the other exposed for the sky and merge them later on. All very well if you're equipped for it but it doesn't sound as if you were.
I think that in your situation, I'd have done the same as you did and sacrificed the sky.
With hindsight (and we've all got a degree in that!) you should have taken a shot of the sky on its own to insert/place later.
That way it would certainly have looked correct and I wouldn't be moaning!

Hi Billy,
Please see my mod.
I isolated the dark bit to the right that you mention using the polygonal lasso, then used the shadows/highlights tool to tweak some life back into it. I then saved that, opened it again and selected just the central part of the same area and did the same again.
I saved that, then opened it and had a go at the same thing with the shadowed section in the top left. This proved less successful and although there does appear to be some detail in there, I just couldn't get to it using this image. Your original RAW, (I assume this used to be RAW?), might give up a bit more.
If you don't want to keep saving and re-opening it, you could always use layers.
All done using CS6.

Bren.

Edit; I feathered the edge of each selection by 2px. That seems to have worked on this image and at this size (and remember it's a Jpeg,) You'll need to increase that proportionately, or as you see fit, on your original.

Hi Craig,
If you're setting the white balance in your camera via a pre-set to suit the shot you're about to take, you'll get a shot with the white balance adjusted as the camera thinks it should be, which may, or may not, be what you actually want. In other words, you'll want to adjust it later in software.
Also, there's every chance that you'll forget to change the setting the next time you use the camera which could mean that the next images will need fixing.
Alternatively, if you leave the W/B setting in the camera at "auto" it makes no difference to your images at the time of shooting because you're going to have to adjust them in processing anyway.
I use "auto" W/B, in camera, every time.
I do however avoid "auto" anything in processing.

Bren.

As Martin says, 'levels' would normally be the first thing that I'd look at, closely followed by 'curves' to make the first adjustments.
However, I'm not sure what you're using as an editor so I've produced a mod. using 'Picasa's' new tools (I preferred the original, pre-Piknik ones) in which I've tried to replicate what would be a shadows/highlights adjustment using CS5/6.
Sadly, I think that I may have overdone it a bit but you'll hopefully see what I've tried to do.
Hope this helps.

Bren.

Edit; I cropped a bit from the RHS and the bottom too.

Hi Prabh,

As Willie has said, I think the reflections work well and I'm not concerned by its business.
I do think that it's just a touch oversaturated though.

Bren.

We are all different aren't we?

I'd go with Prabh when he says that getting down to the child's level would have improved the composition and would probably have brought the people in the background fully into the shot.

My views on the so-called RoT are well documented so the centrality doesn't bother me.

The crops work but personally, I'd leave it.

Bren.

I don't think that overexposure's the problem here John. A check in levels indicates that it's nearly the opposite.
Although the white swan is blown, the problem here is that the image is suffering from being oversaturated.
Some de-saturation using just the yellow channel makes the colours more realistic and a touch more brightness brings it back to life.
I've added a mod.
Hope this helps.
Bren.

I've added a mod. in which I've desaturated it slightly and reduced the contrast, also slightly, then cropped it as I suggested above. I suppose really, I should have straightened it too.
I've also tweaked it using the shadows/highlights tool which has reined in the brightness and opened up quite a bit more detail.
The version that I have here is a little brighter than it appears in the upload but hopefully, you'll get the idea.

Hope this helps.

Bren.

If I was to change this, I'd crop a bit from the top and some from the LHS. without adding anything to the right.
Also, to me, it looks oversharpened although that's very likely to have been caused by the increased saturation/contrast which I think is also overdone.
Sorry if that all sounds a bit negative.
Just my opinion.

Bren.

Hi Stuart,
I know virtually nothing about taking portraits so I'm not the best person in the world to be finding fault but as soon as I saw this, I spotted her bra strap.
I also think that the background on the RHS (the model's left) needs to be lit with the same amount of light as the other side. Her hair is merging slightly with your new background (with its own skirting board!)
As I say, I'm no expert, this is just how I saw the image as I opened it.
I know you're always open to genuine critique or opinion so I hope this helps.

Bren.

Hi Stuart, here are two links.
They're both aimed primarily at Photoshop but I think that the tools you need are also available in Elements if that's what you've got.
Both methods will insert their own version of a hidden watermark.

The first one; "Using channels" can sometimes leave a slight trace on the finished image.

The other, and this is the one that I favour, is completely invisible. When you try this one though, it's worth going a step farther as you expose the mark. Get to the stage where you can see it, then convert that image to mono. It makes your mark much easier to see.

Try them both and see what you think.As I say, I prefer the second one but you do need to be careful whereabouts in your image you place the mark for best effect and you'll need to play around with both methods to find a way that you're happiest with.
Patience is your friend!

Bren.

Edit: I should add that this was discussed in the CG a few weeks ago and we were uploading images using both methods and getting each other to firstly, find the mark and then to remove it and post a mod with it gone. The idea being that the mod. should look as good as the image was before the mark had been removed.
None of us managed to produce a completely unblemished 'after' version.

Hi Elaine,
Sorry to hear you're laid up although, in reality, the weather's been so c****y of late that you haven't missed much in the way of opportunity. I'm doing a "Photo 366" project and finding a shot every day has been hard work.
Anyway, your shot!
I reckon personally, that this is going to be a "Marmite" job. Either you'll like it, or hate it!
For myself, I like it, You've captured the essence of the dog's ability to run free and there are no humans near to him to spoil that illusion.
I also like the sparseness of the colour.
The feeling of open space is more than evident, that background rolls away for what seems like miles.
The biggest downside to it is, as you already know,the burned out sunset.
If it was just a large white ball, then I'd have to think about removing it or trying a few alternative crops but as it is, with a few people upon it and one of them is obviously moving, I think that you'll get away with it.
Even if the inclusion of those people was a coincidence, claim it was intentional!
The only thing that I would certainly do would be to crop a bit from the left. About half of the space between the dog and the edge.
As I've said, I'd expect opinion to be divided over this and I could be the only person that likes it!
Not one that I'd hang on my wall but it would look good as a desktop.

Hope this helps (and brightens up your probably seemingly endless day),

Bren.

Hi Mario,
As Martin say, I'd leave this pretty much as it is.
You could straighten it slightly I suppose, perhaps use the vertical line on the left as a guide but in my experience of Malta, buildings like this don't have a straight line in them!
I think that I might crop the RHS to lose the drainpipe. Otherwise I wouldn't touch it.

Bren.

Hi Andy,

Not a bad shot. Personally I'd crop the top to remove the bit with the stones on, just keeping the green part.

Bren.

There are various ways to go about replacing a sky, or any background for that matter and most of us have our favourites.
I would never use the above method for example.
One suggestion that can be applied to all methods though. If there's a lot of white "bits" left in the trees, rather than trying to clone them all (during which, you'll probably lose the will to live), make sure that your new sky has some cloud, of the right colour, that you can position behind those bits of the trees.
Use the blur tool (set the brush to as small a size as you can get away with and the strength down to 50% or less. You'll need to experiment) and run it around the join between new and old. It hides a million things.

Bren.

I really like this!

Technically, I think it's very well done. Everything that should be in focus, is, the contrast and light are (I think) as they should be and his expression is worth a fortune!
I don't think that it matters on this occasion that you've missed the back of his head and although others will doubtless disagree, I'm perfectly happy with that area of space to the right.
Well done!

Bren.

Considering that this was taken using that camera, it's not a bad result at all.
There's a lot of noise in there and it's not as sharp as it might be but the camera must have been working at its max, just to record a shot in those conditions.
And I'd also remove the thing at the top!
A good effort.

Jester.

Hi Billy,
I think that there's a really good shot in there, it just needs a little help!
This looks very blue, which is causing it (I think) to look a little flat.
I've uploaded a mod., in which I've tried to 'unblue' it a bit using, firstly the colour balance tool and then reducing the blue channel in curves.
I also used threshold curves to increase the contrast (possibly a little too much), all of which in turn has made the orange stronger.
Finally, I sharpened it slightly.
I'm sure that there's a still better result to be had from this.
All done using CS5.
Hope this helps.

Bren.