Ah yes, thanks for the reminder, there was a Topaz Denoise step in their too that I forgot when I listed process above.

Jim,
This was my process (as close as I can remember);
- Created five exposures from the RAW in ACR (-2,-1,0,+1,+2) as TIFFs
- HDR merge of these TIFFs in Photomatix (Natural preset with some minor slider adjustments)
- Some slight colour and contrast adjustments using Curves and Hue/Saturation layers in Photoshop
- Sharpened using Topaz Detail
- Added slight vignette around fishermen/women

Andrew

Here's my take ....

(Download)

When I first got my Canon 6D I purchased the relevant e-book from this web site.

http://www.dojoklo.com/Full_Stop/

He has e-books for most of the recent Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Much easier to read, and better explanations than the original manuals.

The best $14 I spent after buying the camera.

I believe that there is a HDR photo-merge capability in PSE 11, here is one link I found with instructions to follow.

http://www.brendansadventures.com/how-to-create-an-hdr-photo-in-photoshop-elements-11/

Nice work Peter, great to see your work again. Last time in Queenstown for me was my honeymoon 30+ years ago, must get back there some time.

Not familiar with the SX50 but from reading the review it seems you have exposure compensation up to plus or minus 3EV and 3-frame auto bracketing up to plus or minus 2EV. So, in an extreme lighting situation as you describe I wonder whether you could combine these to take three brackets as follows;

Exposure compensation set to -2EV, bracketing set to 3 x 1EV, so you'd get -3, -2, -1
Exposure compensation set to 0, bracketing set to 3 x 1EV, so you'd get -1, 0, +1
Exposure compensation set to +2EV, bracketing set to 3 x 1EV, so you'd get +1, +2, +3

Then select the -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3 and process. That would get you the widest range possible on your camera.

Hopefully the exposure comp setting can be changed easily without moving the camera too much.

Tim,
You've done a great job of masking out the player as the centre of interest, and I think the second one with less blur is much better, but I'd also suggest something else that may improve it.

In both cases you have the background with a "motion" blur, even in the softer second one, the people in the background show a discernible about of motion.

To me, this shot wouldn't have motion blur in the background, as motion blur implies that the subject (e.g. the people in the background) is moving relative to the camera.

I'd use a "Gaussian blur" or similar which will give you more of a "depth of field" blur than a motion blur.

Regards,
Andrew

Another useful command relevant to this discussion is Cmd+Opt+Shift+E (on a Mac) which creates a "Stamp Visible" Layer, that is a new Layer that is just the combined effect of all layers underneath.

No I haven't heard from Peter for ages, haven't seen him posting for a couple of months at least, shame his comments and critiques were awesomely helpful.

Good point .... I think the Mustang with "Filters only" is the better image. Area of the cars front grille especially shows more detail than the HDR.

I will often use multiple approaches, then select the one I like best. Problem is, it's so much fun just playing in the software often I forget what I did :-)

Actually I couldn't agree more. The electronic viewfinder was the reason I just sold my SX50, just couldn't bring myself to choose to use it versus my DSLR, because of the viewfinder.

And it can shoot RAW.

This one taken with the Sigma 150-600 S @600mm on Canon 60D and tripod. f6.3, 1/250 sec, ISO 400.

(Download)

I'm using the Sigma 150-600 Sports on my 60D and it is an amazing lens. I thought it would be a worse performer in low-light than my Sigma 120-400 as it was f6.3 at 600m vs the f5.6 of the 120-400 @ 400mm. But, it is so much better than the 400 in lower light. Image quality is fantastic, but at 2.8kg it is hefty and you definitely need support to use it for more than 1-2 shots, but comfortable on my monopod.