Cdouthitt, you took the words right out of my mouth.

When I switched from film (shooting and had a dark room) to digital, I also sat down that summer with a book on Paint Shop Pro. I studied it from cover to cover. I was blown away that I could not only dodge a tree (as I did in my darkroom), but I could dodge a single leaf on the tree. That's all it took. I was hooked on the new world of PP. So in 2005 I bought my first version of Photoshop, and a book to go along with it. Since then I've upgraded every level right up to PS CS5. I've grown to love PP as much as shooting. Besides taking my photography to a new level, it's down right fun.

Now if you are in photography as a way to pay the bills, you probably don't want to do this, for I find quality PP time consuming, but for me, it's the most rewarding time of all. And yes, you continue to learn new skill sets every time you sit down to the computer ... if you want to. And I want to.

Yes, young folks learn very quickly. My own students in my classroom learn computer software more quickly than us adults since they use instinct more perhaps than we do. Once I tell myself to "stop over thinking", my learning curve matches theirs. And it is infinitely rewarding to learn a new "something" each day when doing PP.

So don't ever get discouraged should you think you cannot learn to do excellent Post Production. You can, guaranteed.

Perhaps the teacher in my is leading me to always look on the good side. My first impression was that this board did have a higher population of Nikon users than Canon users. Why should that matter, really? I won't learn much about the Nikon cameras or lenses, but there are plenty of post that refer to photography itself. And I well remember what it was like when I began in the DSLR days back in 2005. Why not pay it forward and help those who are beginning now? And besides, from discussions on RAW and HDR and PS CC, I continue to learn as much as I've already learned. Whoever the sysop is, he/she continues to move topics forward, on a daily basis, that keeps this board interesting. There's always something for everyone, and I appreciate all the effort. Stay positive folks, there's plenty for everyone.

Welcome Bookkooker, I joined UHH several months ago, shocked by the title (still wondering about the origin) but very impressed with the membership. I came with two major questions, got both of them answered, and now try to 'payback' with information I can share.

On that note, like you, I'm a major Canon user. In fact, now with a 5DII and three L lenses, I'm in deep enough to stay with my Canons. Before 2005, I was all film, and totally Nikon film, with several Nikor lenses. Superb lenses and great body. One of my past physics students, one who was deep in photography, shared one of his thoughts. "Remember, a camera is simply a black box to old film. The difference is all in the lenses.". I liked that and find it to be very true.

Now my good friend has replaced his Rebel with a top model Nikon, along with top lenses. We now both go out and take the best shots we know how. And you know what? We get equal pleasing images and the actual name on the camera makes little differences.

So to you, I say: welcome fellow Canon user. To all others, I say thanks for the great company, and the sharing of knowledge and experiences.

For the longest time I was frustrated between the difference in the color I saw on my iMac and what I saw out of either my Canon printer or my HP printer. Ultimately, I acquired a Data Color profiling device, did the process, and obtained excellent results. If you plan to be in the photography AND printing process for the long haul, I recommend giving this a consideration.

Gentlemen, I have what may be the best kept secret. A company that was well known back in the film days made a smart move when it came time for digital. They offered digital prints and enlargements. What made them so successful during film days was volume, lots and lots of volume. I have to think that is true today when it comes to print making via uploaded files, and with amazing prices. They actually seemed to be "too good to be true". I thought perhaps they were actually printing on some kind of heavy poster paper, so I spent my (I seem to recall) $9.95 for a 24 x 36. What shocked me was the print received was amazing, and printed on Kodak print stock. You might want to give them a try. It's Clarkcolor.com

Since we have an amazing and busy discussion going on here, I have a new experience to toss into the mix.

New to HDR, I've attempted the 3-bracketed images, hand held too, and put through Photomatix Pro 4.2. The results were very pleasant. Then I took an image of a historic cathedral in Cork, Ireland. The single image was taken, RAW of course, by my Canon 5DII. I opened it up three times in RAW. The second and third times I under exposed (2EV) and over exposed (2EV). I imported them into Photomatrix as three separate images. (Not imported to do tonemapping.) After processed, the outcome was amazing. My first experience doing under and over via RAW, no tonemapping needed. Amazing results. Okay, I know I'm going to get attacked, and that's okay. I welcome your responses.

I'm enjoying what I'm reading, and I thank you for that. Putting my iMac to sleep will very new for me. But let me ask one more similar question. Have you had occasional times when the computer wakes -itself- back up? If you, did you learn what to do to prevent this?

I've just learned that it is better to put my Mac to sleep when not in use, rather than turn off for the night. This came from a guy who is very deep in the Apple world. He has had a computer on for seven years now, just putting it to sleep when he's away from it. He finally said that 'sleep' is almost the same thing as 'off'.

How many of you leave your computers on, and only put them to sleep when you are not using it?

Mooslover 75, did you take your original single image file and create two more, one set for great exposure/brightness and the second underexposed/darkened? And if yes, did you do that in RAW?

I for one, love your image, and would like to hear more of how you created it.

Over the past week or so, I've seen some amazing HDR images, and I've enjoyed reading shooting techniques. On that point, I'd like to ask the question. How many of you, who have done HDR, and do so with bracketed images AND hand-holding your camera? And the results?

From one Missourian to another, our state capitol building needs a seriously improved image that the media uses on the St. Louis media outlets. We always see the same image, sadly washed out. The media could use your touch on the state capitol.

Rufe, I love your HDR work. Can you tell us how many exposures you use and how much bracketing you used? Thanks.

So many great thoughts about cameras in particular, photography in general. I always enjoy reading what my fellow photographers write. Although somewhat new here, I hope it's okay call call you my fellow photographers.

The "present" drive for social media certainly gives marketing a way to tell the world that "small is better". But remember how Social Media changes almost by the week.

If and when a market becomes saturated, companies must come up with something new. Change an iPhone from one camera and two, and so many toss their "old" iPhone away for a two-camera iPhone. Let me know if you see the high frequency of "selfie" that you see today, oh, two years from now. Trend? Fad? You pick the word.

Oh and I'll still pack up my 5DII with two accessory lenses when I travel to the Baltic in 2015. For this summer, camera with one lens, we'll be in the states.. The results are worth it.

In closing, for the past fifteen years, I've been doing an unofficial poll of my college students, to learn how many of them are listening to their music via the (remember this?) vinyl 12" record. Ten years ago, it was 2 in a class of 15. Last year it was 8 in a class of 15. Now look at Sound & Vision magazine or Stereophile magazine. Now you find more than 15 full page ads for new turntables and cartridges. Consider that 1.5 million records were sold last year in this country alone, more in Europe. Didn't we think LP's were dead?

I enjoy watching trends, but I won't switch to a small point in shoot because it will be "better". I have what I call a pocket camera,, but for serious photography? Mirrorless? Point and Shoot? Compact? iPhone camera? No, they cannot capture the data that a good DSLR camera can. So don't worry about them going away.

Oh, another example. Remember the compact disc? I had 2,000 LP records 20 years ago. When CD players came along at a reasonable price, offering dynamic range much much closer to concert hall performance, I switched. I gave my 2,000 records away to a former student, and I now have more than 2,000 CD's. Now realizing that you hardly see any CD's sold in the stores anymore, they are still available online. Are new recordings being made for CD (and LP)? I listen to AMP (American Public Media) via my local NPR station, offering classical music 24 hours a day. At least two time every hour I hear the announcer state that the next selection is from a new CD from XYZ company. So while mp3 players seemed to be totally replacing CDs, they are not. It just appears that way. NBC News reported weeks ago that many of today's pop recording artist are demanding that their releases be made available not only online via iTunes and other sources, but those same artist are requiring that their music be released on LP and CD.

So if a media has something good to offer, it may appear to begin to disappear, but just remember Mark Twain. They only "appear" to go away.

Thank you Andrew. While HDR is totally new to me, the power of RAW in a 24meg full size sensor is amazing.

I am convinced that using RAW is not only THE method we should use, but it's the POWER house few realize.

For example, on my first transatlantic cruise, from Southampton to New York, we passed the Statue of Liberty at about 5AM, long before sun rise. The statue was nicely illuminated as seen by the eye but at a good distance. Through my viewfinder I could hardly see it. With ISO of 200, shutter at 1/30s and f4, I took the shot. On the LCD screen on the back of my camera I could not see anything. But at home, in photoshop, I -totally- recovered not only the statue, but the reflection of the statue on the water. And, by the way, this was not with my 5DII, but this happened in 2009 and I had a Canon 20D with only 8meg, but could shoot in RAW. The data power stored on a RAW file is amazing.

So all along, I've felt confident that with one single RAW shot, a number of images could be created in ARC, images created with -2 and +2.

Thank you Andrew for confirming that. Your second HDR (okay "HDR Like") is beautiful, and I'm sure the human eye could have seen that view first hand.

Thank you Andrew.Haysom,

Our goal is to enjoy what we do, and share experiences and knowledge here with other photographers, beginners and experienced folks, and to continue to learn throughout our future lives.

In closing I'd like to share this scientific fact that my own physics students will learn every fall. Our bodies are amazing devices, and their capabilities are as varied as they are amazing. Our vision, like our sense of hearing, has an amazing range few realize. Here are the numbers: The range from *the weakest signal of light (and sound) to *the strongest signal of light (and sound) that we can process [think: "I'm just beginning to see the tiny light (hear the tiny sound)" to "ouch, light too bright (sound is now too loud) is a ratio of 1 : 1,000,000,000,000. That's a billion to one ratio. Our eyes are capable of processing such a massive range from the weakest to the strongest. No camera sensor made (yet) has that capability. So what drives us to HDR (in any fashion)? The quest to capture and print an image that is ""closer"" to what our eye can see, than what we can capture and print without HDR. That is what drives me to HDR. I hope no one forgets that is our basic goal, and of course, to have fun along the way.

That's this physics teacher/photographer's little bit of trivia for today.