I'm a real ditz when it comes to PP. I just installed PSE10, and there it sits. I hardly ever touch PP and then only the most basic stuff like cropping, lightening/darkening. If you'd care to lead me by the hand thru the process of HDRing an already taken image, I'll try it. Otherwise, I'm afraid it'll be a while before I figure it all out.
Nice knowing it CAN be done for when I build up the courage to try, though.

Unless I missed something from you contributors.......HDR seems like something that PP could do all on it's own. I would think that you could take ONE picture, then in post, the computor could mechanically generate the same shot one or two steps both directions of the original automatically. Can this not be done?

Thanks to all for your very encouraging comments on getting started in the world of HDR. I will be trying out some of these ideas.

I just tapped into some info. right here. So my research has officially begun.

I know nothing about this other than I have been impressed by some HDR'd images that I've seen.
Does this require a camera with HDR capabilities?
Is this totally performed in post processing?
If so, are there special processing capabilities needed? (I have PSE10)
And most importantly, is it difficult (for one who has only the most basic--and I'm not being humble--of post processing skills)?
Thanks for getting me started.

Money is very much an object when you throw the 1.2 "L" lens into the mix. 1.4 is about as far as I could go, and that would be via a trade(not cash) deal, if it were to happen.
Your comments are all well taken, but this continues to be a difficult decision. Because like a lot of gear decisions, there are hardly ever any completely one-sided, unanimous decisions out there. Just too many variables when it comes to camera gear decisions.
I had a 50 1.8. I have a 50 2.8 Compact Macro. And I can trade the 50 2.5 for a 50 1.4. I would do it if it were not for the fact that the minimum focusing distance of the 2.5 is about 9" and that of the 1.4 is 18".
BUT.....the MFD of my Sigma 17-70 OS is about 8". So maybe that zoom can come to the rescue of my close-focusing needs, and the 50mm can cover the low light.
Why is the MFD so important? I like to shoot close-ups (not necessarily macros) of flowers. And I want the lower light ability of the 1.8 or 1.4 for other situations.

I see where many folks feel that the 50 1.8 lens is NOT dead-on at 1.8. That said, reviews seem to indicate that the 50 1.4 lens set to 1.8 is VERY much better than this lens at 1.4 OR the 1.8 lens wide open at 1.8. If this is in fact a truth, wouldn't it make the higher cost of the 1.4 lens a lot more worth it?

No driving urge to go Macro. Just thought I might kill 2 birds with the one (50 2.5) lens. A 50mm lower light capable lens is first priority.

Thanks for your responses, thus far. Anyone up for trying to defend the 50 2.5 Macro lens?

In would want any of the 3 for use with lower light. Seems like the 1.4 at 1.4 and the 1.8 at 1.8 are their respective weakest apertures. But take 1.4 down to 1.8 and it improves significantly (according to a lens comparison site, anyway).
But I've also seen some very convincing images taken by the 2.5 lens (as a "nornal" lens, and not macro). Still, the 1.4 might just be preferred. Only downside might be it's 18" minimum focus distance. The 2.5 is only 9"....great for florals.

I'm considering a nice 50mm prime lens as my next lens purchase. I've got it down to these Canon lenses: 50 1.8 II, 50 1.4 USM, and 50 2.5 Compact Macro.
I shoot with a T1i. So which lens would you prefer and why?
The 2.5 lens has the obvious fringe benefit of also having some limited macro abilities(or more serious close focusing abilities)for what that's worth. Both others have decent lower light capabilities; with the 1.4 twice that of the 1.8. Thanks

Yes, that is helpful. Thanks much.

I tried downloading new PSE10 yesterday. There are 3 CDs. I loaded #1 just fine. Then it said Load #2. I hit OK, but the first CD didn't come out. I also pressed the load/release on the computer, and it stayed in there as well. A few minutes later, I tried the L/R button again, and it released CD#1, but proceeded to shutdown the computer and started it up again. Then I noticed I did have the PSE10 EDIT and ORGANIZE options. So it appeared that after loading the 1 of 3 CDs I have the PSE10 program. But that's not all...
When I intalled PSE2.0 a couple years ago, I noticed that all of the pictures that I ever did download into "My Pictures" were automatically also compiled within the PSE2.0 program as well. So I was able to very conveniently go into my PSE and work with the pictures. Not so with PSE10. I seem to have to take only one picture at a time to the PSE10 site to work on it. This is not what I'd prefer to do. Takes way too long.
So, my concerns for your help:
1) Did I really only need to download the 1st of the 3 PSE10 CDs? If so, what are the others for?
2) More importantly, how can I get ALL of my images currently in many folders in "My Pictures" into the PSE10 work station?
Thanks for your help.

After a day of reflecting on my dilemma, I have decided to forget about acquiring any new gear and go with what I have...and be happy. (For the moment, anyway.) There is no gear that will make my quality of photography much improved over what I use now. When I feel I'm being held back by gear, I'll deal with it.
I'm being a "big boy" about this decision...and know it'll last at least until I see someone selling some gear with "my name on it"...........maybe until tomorrow.
Happy Holidays!!

"LBA"? Pray-tell, what might that be? (I can't wait to hear this one.)

GDRoth,

That does sound like the most sensible route.......keep and use the SZ, and build on the DSLR. Keep telling me this, and maybe, just maybe, I'll quit looking around. Thanks