Show Off Your Pics (1 Viewer)

[Scott Merryfield]

I knew about HDR in LR6, but missed the pano function. I do need to get around to upgrading if a sale pops up.

 

[Citizen87645]

I finally opted for the Lr subscription model with Photoshop for 9.99 per month. It seemed like a reasonable amount for the latest versions (and not having to think about version management). I don't use Photoshop very often, but when I do it's nice to have the latest.

 

[JohnRice]

I finally opted for the Lr subscription model with Photoshop for 9.99 per month. It seemed like a reasonable amount for the latest versions (and not having to think about version management). I don't use Photoshop very often, but when I do it's nice to have the latest.

I agree. I tend to expect them to hike up the price once they have everyone converted, but maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I do not use Photoshop -- only Lightroom, plus I occasionally use an older version of Photoshop Elements -- mostly for scanning old photographs. For Lightroom, I still prefer to go the standalone route instead of subscription. I can usually buy an upgrade for around $75 and it will last me a couple years, which is quite a bit less than paying $120 per year.

 

[Sam Posten]

I watch for the discounts at B&H and others that let you buy a year at a time as a digital code which bring it to $7.99

Expired example:
http://slickdeals.net/f/8420791-lig...0-off-at-amazon-7-99-month?v=1&src=SiteSearch

 

[DavidJ]

Anyone still use Photomatix for HDR? I used it several years ago and I liked the natural results I could get out of it. I've tried the HDR in PS, but wasn't impressed by it.

 

[JohnRice]

I use Photomatix, and the results can be anywhere from very natural to completely unnatural. It's all up to what you do with it. I wasn't happy with PS either.

 

[DavidJ]

I use Photomatix, and the results can be anywhere from very natural to completely unnatural. It's all up to what you do with it. I wasn't happy with PS either.

So you still find it worthwhile then? That's good to know. I'm aware that you can go for the over-the-top HDR look with it, but that's not my style and in the past I found it really good for getting increased dynamic range while still keeping things natural. I'm going to look into getting the new version of it since PS didn't impress me.

 

[JohnRice]

I've been experimenting recently with what can be done with it. That's not my ultimate goal. I've never been happy to find one approach, look or technique and to it do death. I like to really explore techniques, push them around every way I can think of, then decide what I like and don't like about them. If you look at my posts, what you'll actually find is some that work and others that don't. That's my intention. For me, doing things wrong is a valuable process.

Look at post #7 in this thread for a natural take on HDR. There are a couple other examples that aren't natural, but are also extremely successful, as far as I'm concerned. Then, there are extreme ones I've posted that aren't successful. They weren't successful in their own right, but they led me to the ones that were, which is my purpose in doing them to begin with.

 

[JohnRice]

Posts 15 & 28 are examples that, for me, aren't natural, but I consider them to be successful shots. I also personally like #39 (I think that's the post) maybe because it's an unusual shot for me. A lot of the others I've posted fall in the learning process of the whole thing.

Here's another recent shot I didn't post that I like, which uses an approach to HDR that occurred to me all of a sudden. Technically, it's a "wrong" way to use the technique, but it gives a different result and opens a whole new approach. I'm sure I'm not the first to do it, but I haven't looked around to find out.

 

[JohnRice]

My dog Ike was quite happy with his gift today:

Mike, I like this more each time I see it. Great use of wide angle.

 

[JohnRice]

I know this is kind of an exotic question, but do any of you guys have any experience with shoe mount IR flash triggers? I don't mean fancy, TTL models, but ones to trigger studio strobes. I want something to wirelessly trigger my Bowens monolights, or even my Speedotron equipment, if I ever lug that stuff out again. The Wein Sync-Link is about the only one I find, other than some Brand X stuff and a Fotodiox that's half the price, but I'm afraid it'll be too weak.

Actually, if I want to use them outdoors, I might want a radio transmitter and receivers. I guess I should look into that.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Posts 15 & 28 are examples that, for me, aren't natural, but I consider them to be successful shots. I also personally like #39 (I think that's the post) maybe because it's an unusual shot for me. A lot of the others I've posted fall in the learning process of the whole thing.

Here's another recent shot I didn't post that I like, which uses an approach to HDR that occurred to me all of a sudden. Technically, it's a "wrong" way to use the technique, but it gives a different result and opens a whole new approach. I'm sure I'm not the first to do it, but I haven't looked around to find out.

View attachment 29628

I really like the tones in this one, John. I assume this was created from a single shot?

 

[JohnRice]

Scott, that actually is HDR, but I kind of broke the rules. I only used the normal and minus exposures, because I didn't care about shadow detail. In fact, I wanted the mountains to go totally black, but I wanted to get nice texture and depth in the clouds. Actually, a lot of time on shots like this I set the camera to underexpose 1 stop, so it may be made entirely of underexposed shots. I did de-ghosting to extract the birds only from the most exposed shot, which would have been either normal or -1 EV. I don't remember if I set -1 EV or not. I'll have to look at the original files to see. I was going to experiment with this by also finding subjects I want to be high key, and only use the normal and + exposures, just to see what I get.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Thanks, John. The birds in flight is what made me think this was multiple exposure extractions from a single RAW file. Interesting technique.

 

[Sam Posten]

I use the new cheaper Pocket Wizards and they are fing AWESOME. Highly recommended.
http://www.amazon.com/PocketWizard-...qid=1456454378&sr=8-2&keywords=pocket+wizards

 

[Scott Merryfield]

A few shots from our Caribbean cruise last week:

St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

Wide angle fun aboard the ship

Hanging around the dock in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

 

[JohnRice]

I stopped for some ultra panoramics on the way home from work today. The full image is actually wider than this, and it's enormous. 120MP. I decided to crop it so the two prominent cloud formations framed the shot. No HDR here. Just straight photography. I did at least a dozen series as the light changed. So far, this one looked the nicest, but it takes time to view them. The forum shrunk the original. I don't know why. BTW, there are trees in the foreground on the left and the Rocky Mountains on about the right 2/3rds.

 

[JohnRice]

Some twilight sky the same night as the panoramic in my last post. Taken in the opposite direction, after the sun went down. Believe it or not, I de-saturated it (-15) and reduced the vibrance a bit (-5), because the straight shot was so colorful, it looked artificial.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

John, that must have been an amazing sky to actually witness if your photo is actually de-saturated!