My process of post processing is pretty simple. Eliminate the bad shots. Level the horizons on the ones left, and adjust exposure, if needed, contrast, vibrance/ saturation, and clone out the beer cans, cigarette butts, etc. Of course I could elaborate on each of those issues at length.

I felt that way about my (pre F2) Nikon FTN. It did not even have a hinged back so you could load film easily. I have worked with professional photographers with 4 x 5 view cameras doing architectural shots of my designs. So I know what is involved in taking a professional quality architectural shot, and the time it takes.

Back then, we drafted architectural drawings with pen and ink on vellum. Changes took hours or days. AutoCad software made that process a thousand times simpler and more effective (OK, a hundred times). Same with digital plus Photoshop, versus film plus darkrooms.

So my point is (for you waiting patiently) the camera does matter. It is a valuable tool to achieving the capture of your artistic vision. But just as in architectural design, the vision is more important than the tool, but both matter.

In architecture, we strive for a "timeless" design, one that is not outdated in a few years. Same with any art form, and Andy Warhol had his 15 minutes of fame. So have many other photographers who had their brief period of acclaim. Life's book of "100 Photographs That Changed the world"define my meaning of timeless photography pretty well. But their emphasis is on "street" or photojournalism photography, not so much "Art" photography, or nature photography, which can be timeless also.

What is the "Meaning of Life"? Show me in a photograph. A goal for the future, don't you think?

Thank you.

I posted three (plus a joke one that on one laughed at). Which one did you love?

Thanks, PalePictures. My architectural shots are all done using existing light, or lack thereof, as this is a hobby for me, not a profession.

My method, which I started way back in Photoshop 7, before I ever heard of HDR, is to start with the darkest image, layer the as-metered one on top, use Layer/ Layer Mask/ Reveal All and using a black paint brush, "reveal" the parts of the darker image. I reduce the opacity of the brush on the softest setting to make the transitions.

I then flatten and repeat with overlaying the brighter image and revealing the detail I want. Some very contrast images require more than three exposures, but the process is the same.

My goal is to make it look more like your eyes see the scene, not to create a painterly or cartooney HDR "effect". This method definitely takes more time than using any of the HDR software I have tried, but I can never get any of them to do what I want exactly.

Any advice on how to improve my process is very welcome.

HDR of Red Clay Cabin- 8 Stop Exposure Range

Yeah, the larger image of the church is definitely HDR, but it was done manually using layers instead of using Photoshop's standard setups. I find that I can get exactly what I want that way, instead of a program deciding for me. I just posted that comparison to show just a bit of the range of different approaches to an HDR edit.

HDR is difficult to do well, even with the wide selection of software to produce it. There are so many variables. And results range from an attempt at photo realism, where you cannot even tell it is HDR, to the very cartooney images, with halos at the edges of the sky that are so common.

I really appreciate your posting that link. I love to critique photos, but my emphasis is mostly on technical issues to help beginners, and on very basic aesthetic issues like basic composition. I try (not always successfully) to avoid aesthetic issues beyond the basic ones. Frankly some of the technical critiques of Bressons' image were valid if it had been photographed with today's technology.

You are so right about the variety in styles and approaches to photography, which make it such a rich art form.

Not sure why this subject needed HDR techniques except for the fact of the white sky. IF a minus 2 stop exposure would give you a blue sky, then a good HDR edit would show that. Frankly, I think one could get nearly the same results with simple increased in contrast and saturation from the original.

Not trying to be an HDR snob (I am, by the way) here are illustrations of HDR, one of which I posted on another thread on HDR the last day or so.

Thanks for the very interesting references Brandy in Idaho.

Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs are still great examples for "street photography", spontaneous images of everyday happenings, perfectly timed. Considering the equipment and film technology of the day when that photo was taken (1932), it is no wonder it is a classic. Henri Cartier-Bresson mastered his equipment and film so that he could pursue his "decisive moment" without the technical aspects slowing down his vision. His work is in contrast to the perfectionism evident in the works of Ansel Adams or Eliot Porter, for example. All three are masters of photography, as are others like Minor White and Edward Weston, displaying the differences in philosophy even in so-called "straight" photography.

I do a lot of architectural and industrial shots that require perspective correction and the correction of lens abberations, so Photoshop CS5 is perfect for me. I have been using Photoshop for a long time and still find new things about it, and that is what makes it fun.

I have been a PhotoShop user since PhotoShop 7, then CS, CS3 and now CS5, which is by far the best. I have been frustrated by the lack of features in the other editing programs mentioned, but have not tried Lightroom. I have seen no need for anything other than Photoshop for what I do. PhotoShop is more difficult to learn, and I learn something new all the time with it.

I think it will work. You will have to manually focus, I suspect, because of the loss of light due to the effective f-stop being so small. You may also have trouble manually focusing because the image will be so dark. Exposure will be trial and error using your histogram. As pointed out, it cost nothing to try, except the cost of the second converter.

Here is a link to my thread. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-7782-1.html

If you are advanced enough for a DSLR, and have the money to buy the lenses you will need in addition to the body, then by all means go for a DSLR. But unless you intend to sell you images professionally or make poster sized prints, a good compact camera may be all that your need.

I do use a Nikon D90 DSLR now, but I shot with compacts for the first 5 years of my digital photography.

You don't say how much of a beginner you are, but my advise is to get a good compact super zoom camera instead of a DSLR to learn with. The one around 10 mp take excellent photos that can be enlarged quite a bit. Since you live in Alaska, I suspect wildlife might be one of your subjects, and a small super zoom has excellent long telephoto settings. They also take great near-macros too. Brands I recommend are Nikon, Canon and Sony.

I have a thread on here about how to get good quality from a compact camera. Below are some samples of what a compact camera can do.

Cataloochee Elk- Nikon Coolpix P80


Hills near Oakland, CA- Panasonic DMC TZ3


Dandelion- Canon S70

As far as I can see, there is no perceptible difference in the photos we take with either Canon or Nikon. Choice should depend on if you have old Canon or Nikon lenses from the past. Another thing is if you like changing lenses by putting them on clockwise or counterclockwise, as they are different... OK, that should not be a determining factor, unless you are hard to train to changes. Probably most important is how they feel in your hand, and only trying them will tell that.

I am a Nikon man going back to the 1970's with my Nikon FTN, black professional model.