When shooting HDR, I always consider aperture to be the most critical variable - that is, keeping it constant. Otherwise, different parts of your bracketed images will be more or less in focus, and you can run into real problems. Shutter speed doesn't affect the quality of the image at all, unless your shooting hand-held and getting too much camera movement (which affects the registration of the images). As for higher (or variable) ISO settings - the original question - The only possible effect I can think of is that image quality suffers at high ISOs (especially due to noise). In terms of HDR, then, the only question is whether some of those high-ISO quality problems are somewhat mitigated by the blending of several images. I'm not sure there's a definitive answer to that.

To me, the two main ingredients here are whether there is movement/action within the scene and whether or not you're using a tripod. If there is movement in the scene, then you're likely going to need to set a high enough shutter speed to avoid ghosting. If that isn't possible with the aperture you need, then raising the ISO is your only option, whether manually or automatically. However, whether or not there is movement in the scene, trying to hand-hold for 3 or more bracketed shots is risky, and it's far better to use a tripod if you're aiming for an HDR image. If you do that, and there is no discernable movement in the scene, then you can - and should - set the ISO at a reasonable level to begin with, because shutter speed isn't a problem. On the other hand, even with a tripod, movement within the scene is going to force you up to higher ISO levels because you can't afford slow shutter speeds.

Hi there, and welcome to the Forum. You'll learn a great deal over time simply by following these posts. As for your questions, one of the most useful sayings I've heard in the field is Ansel Adams' characterization of the art of photography as "painting with light." You might find that proceeding from that definition could help you put some shape around your class. As for resources, you might appreciate an excellent book by Michael Freeman called "Photography and the Art of Seeing." It's an excellent text for bridging between the longstanding principles of the visual arts and the art of photography. Its chapters might be a good basis for discussion in class, as well as assignments.

Good to know.

It really just comes down to a matter of discipline. When I first began using the back button, the biggest challenge was to "unlearn" my reliance on the shutter button, which had become second-nature. It took discovering a number of poorly focused images after the fact to drill into my head the need to remember to focus from the back button. You have to get to where THAT becomes second-nature.

Interesting. Some years back, I was in a position where I needed to transmit large image files, and used a service that involved uploading them from my end, including an email-type message. The message would then be sent to the recipient with a link to download the images at his/her end. I don't remember what the service was called, and am not sure if they (or anything similar) are still out there. They were very helpful - could handle images up to 20mb or more, as I recall.

Photoshop, of course, has multiple ways to do almost anything - a bane and a boon... I'm wondering what everyone's preferred approach is to removing an unwanted object - particularly if the background is a bit cluttered.

I agree with all of the advantages others have cited. One additional advantage I've sometimes found is that I may want to take the meter reading from a different part of the visual field than where I'm focusing. Back button focusing, by separating focusing from metering, allows me to do that.

Another idea you might find useful is to begin developing personal photography "themes." I have a number of them - "Shooting into the light," for example, or "architectural abstracts," or "reflections," or (don't laugh too hard...) "Bathrooms I have known." The latter one dates way back to my college days, when I encountered some, shall we say, interestingly-photogenic bathroom scenarios. It also includes such images as a toilet I found abandoned in the middle of an otherwise-picturesque meadow. The point is, such themes can lend themselves to "collections," and help guide your search for interesting images.

On your "General" topic, “Why did I take that?” by definition tends to happen only later, when you’re looking at an image you captured and it isn’t appealing. The fact is, almost always, that there was something appealing in or about the actual scene – something that attracted you. As often as not, the problem wasn’t the scene, itself, but how you went about shooting it – e.g. you just took a snapshot, rather than trying to record the sensation you were feeling. So, before shooting I try to ask two questions in such cases: (1) “What’s making me want to shoot this? What is it about this scene that’s attracting me?” and then (2) “OK, what’s the best way for me to convey that?” It may lead you to shooting from a different angle, honing in on just a part of the scene, changing your exposure or depth of field, or maybe something more creative. In doing so, you’re naturally migrating from the Type 1 to Type 2 image you described. In fact, this might just be the most natural way of making that transition.

I've shot there before, myself. A truly great experience! Contrary to conventional wisdom, I found that mid-day was actually the best time to shoot because that's about the only time of day when the sunlight actually makes its way down into the canyons (because they're so narrow). If you're looking to capture the interplay between light & shadows down there, that's what I would recommend. As for lens, you'll want at least mildly wide-angle in your bag - maybe 28mm on down. I'd include a normal lens (50-70mm) as well. You're less likely to find opportunities for longer lenses.

While you're in the vicinity, I would check out a little-known canyon called "No Holes Canyon" (if I recall). It's on Navajo land, and you'll need to get a permit from their local office. You wind up parking in a little space alongside the road (next to a bridge) and then scrambling down a 30-or-so-foot embankment to get into it. From there, you can wander quite some distance. It's a bit wider and more open than the Antelopes, but has its own charm.

It seems to me that one’s point of view here depends in part on which “lens” you choose to view photography through (pardon the pun…). One the one hand, photography is a tool for recording particular moments in time. On the other hand, it is an art form, where the aim is to creatively convey an idea or image in the photographer’s mind. In that case, today’s digital camera is one of an arsenal of tools in the photographer’s toolbox, and the image may be just the starting point of the creative process.

I happen to be more of a purest, in that I strive to work with what the natural conditions give me, and am somewhat of a minimalist when it comes to post processing. But that’s just my preference, and it doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the work of those who manipulate images more extensively. It’s art in any case.

To my knowledge, no one has ever written a rule requiring different art forms to stay confined within their own boundaries. I view Photoshop and similar tools as having made the boundaries of photography more permeable and the horizons more expansive from a creative standpoint.

Impressive! I've acquired On1, but hadn't done much with it yet (old dog...). Guess it might be time for some new tricks.

An interesting approach.

Thanks, all. I'm at least tangentially familiar with Refine Edge and use of Levels - need to explore them a bit further. I wasn't familiar with Blend It or Inner Shadow. Both look intriguing. I'll have to check them out further. I was just curious what people favored. Photoshop (as we all know) offers so many different ways to do just about anything, but invariably some work better than others (or are easier).