Attempt @ streets..In MANUAL!

Testing out Manual skills and know that plenty of C&C is out there to make me better! Also feel free to share how you would improve the composition...Thanks a bunch!!

1-- Shutter: 1/160
Aperture: 10
+2/3 compensation
ISO 200

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

#6 is a good action shot.
#4 looks like a great candidate for HDR.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6003547
#6 is a good action shot.
#4 looks like a great candidate for HDR.

Thanks!! if i only knew what HDR was...:o

here is a quick link I found on the subject.
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ls/high-dynamic-range.htm

in a nutshell it's a way to kinda "cheat" your dynamic range. HDR stands for high dynamic range and can be done to help you with areas that have too much range for your camera to capture. like photo's 3 and 4. this way you can get the exposed building in picture 3 but yet still have the nice blue in the sky with the detailed clouds like number 4.

at least that's my understanding of it but I'm fairly noob so you know the saying about a grain of salt right?

rx7speed wrote in post #6004599
here is a quick link I found on the subject.
http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …ls/high-dynamic-range.htm

in a nutshell it's a way to kinda "cheat" your dynamic range. HDR stands for high dynamic range and can be done to help you with areas that have too much range for your camera to capture. like photo's 3 and 4. this way you can get the exposed building in picture 3 but yet still have the nice blue in the sky with the detailed clouds like number 4.

at least that's my understanding of it but I'm fairly noob so you know the saying about a grain of salt right?

Your description of HDR is very good. The only thing I would add is that to do it right one normally takes 2 or 3 shots on a tripod in order to make it possible for the HDR software to optimally combine the best parts of the several shots.

In regard to your signature, I would not denigrate the kit lens. It is good enough that it will compare very nicely in any side by side test that you can do with a 10 MP camera.

I don't mean it cheap as it is a horrible hunk o junk I'm actually fairly happy with it even more so with what I had to compare it to (the other cam in the sig) just more of cheap as in it's price is and that some seem to turn their nose up when comparing it to many of the higher end lenses that I can't afford anway. But then again those that might be turning their nose up might also think it is the older non IS lens as well I guess. my only real complaint is it seems to be a tad soft sometimes (could easily be user error though) and it doesn't have the reach.

With a lot of PP you can salvage a quasi HDR from the 3 shots of the church facade you posted above. If you select "Image Editing OK" in you user profile, I will take a shot at it. The shots appear to have been taken handheld, with camera movement between each shot - just more PP work (PP is short for post-processing).

Kirk

165 views and only 3 people have something to add??? I can't possibly be THAT good!! Come on photographers, rip up my stuff...let me have it!! LOL!!

How can i get better if some no one has some good ol' C&C...Thanks all!

It would come out better if you had taken it from a tripod with exposure bracketing, but if you just (duplicate your layer first) brighten the picture and then create a layer mask and paint the sky back in, it turns out okay.

griptape wrote in post #6009624
It would come out better if you had taken it from a tripod with exposure bracketing, but if you just (duplicate your layer first) brighten the picture and then create a layer mask and paint the sky back in, it turns out okay.

wow!! i have NO IDEA how to do that stuff..pretty good...I don't have photo shop.. Oh and, if this shot had a fast enough shutter speed, why would it have been better using a tripod???

Here's an HDR blend of your images, with some additional PP and compositing of the original well-exposed sky into the mix. You need to use a tripod when shooting multiple images for exposure blending or HDR generation so that the images remain registered (ie., there is no change in camera tilt, pan etc. and no shifting of the camera). This way multiple exposures of the exact same image are shot from the exact same angle, focal length, white balance, etc. With registered images, the blend or HDR generation has the best chance of working. If you do not have a tripod, etc., you need to figure out your exposure range, and try to steady the camera as best you can - if you only need 3 stops worth of exposure, separated by 1 stop each, then auto exposure bracketing and a steady hand may do the trick. That way a serendipitous shot like this has a chance for HDR with a little planning and patience.

I had to massage your images a little to get them to work, but, shows what photoshop and photomatix can do with even the trickiest stuff. I warmed the facade of the church a little, just because that stone is so nice and the golden/orange complements the blue sky and the blue reflection of the sky in the windows. Might have gone a little too far with that...

The mask around the church (separating church from sky) is pretty rough, but you get the idea. The thin white halo is created by my lack of accurately masking the area, not an artifact of the PP.

Kirk

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

A tripod with your camera set to exposure bracket will take the exact same shot but with 3 different exposures. When you use layers in post processing, you can choose whatever exposure is right for a particular part of the scene (i.e. building can be one exposure, sky would be the other). So if your camera shoots 3 frames per second, your shot is now a 1 second exposure to get what you need, which would obviously be blurry hand held.

kirkt wrote in post #6009859
Here's an HDR blend of your images, with some additional PP and compositing of the original well-exposed sky into the mix. You need to use a tripod when shooting multiple images for exposure blending or HDR generation so that the images remain registered (ie., there is no change in camera tilt, pan etc. and no shifting of the camera). This way multiple exposures of the exact same image are shot from the exact same angle, focal length, white balance, etc. With registered images, the blend or HDR generation has the best chance of working. If you do not have a tripod, etc., you need to figure out your exposure range, and try to steady the camera as best you can - if you only need 3 stops worth of exposure, separated by 1 stop each, then auto exposure bracketing and a steady hand may do the trick. That way a serendipitous shot like this has a chance for HDR with a little planning and patience.

I had to massage your images a little to get them to work, but, shows what photoshop and photomatix can do with even the trickiest stuff. I warmed the facade of the church a little, just because that stone is so nice and the golden/orange complements the blue sky and the blue reflection of the sky in the windows. Might have gone a little too far with that...

The mask around the church (separating church from sky) is pretty rough, but you get the idea. The thin white halo is created by my lack of accurately masking the area, not an artifact of the PP.

Kirk

WOW!!! thx for that and all ure time!

izzy35 wrote in post #6009679
wow!! i have NO IDEA how to do that stuff..pretty good...I don't have photo shop.. Oh and, if this shot had a fast enough shutter speed, why would it have been better using a tripod???

Most any HDR technique is going to make use of multiple shots and mutliple shots will not be in register unless a tripod is used (however, some HDR software is capable of getting multiple shots in register if they are reasonably close). So, it's a question of keeping the images framed properly - not a camera motion issue.

It is also important to use various shutter speeds or iso settings rather than aperture changes for the several shots - otherwise the depth of field changes from shot to shot will cause a big problem in the merge.