Are talking about the horses under the tree?

It's a terrifying experience to be in a small boat when one of these things goes by close.

There are two small fishing boats and perhaps a small group of kayakers just at the horizon near the right margin. Not a scene they will soon forget.

[quote=davedeuce]

And the functional difference is what?

Exxon Mobil stock did over 10% in 2011, Jan 1 on Jan 1. Many funds did 5% or more. Stay away from Savings Accounts. Find a good investment advisor. (Hey, this is a photography forum.)

Even if you stash you cash under the mattress and it continuously loses value to inflation, you're doing a lot better than buying insurance.

Pay your premium On January 1 and on December 31 you have NOTHING left, just about every year. I've been at it for almost 55 years and have had just one compensable event. It was a twin-lens reflex on a tripod toppled by a little kid, parts all over the floor. The manufacturer, Yashica, fixed it for $25 bucks (1961).

I suppose there is a significant exception. If you're a klutz who keeps dropping and breaking things, then you need insurance.

"... this phenomenon is precisely the argument that some use to justify HDR with scenes that have both bright spots and deep shadows, an effort to make the resulting image more closely resemble what the naked eye can see."

It's actually an effort to bring the image to a range that the monitor can display and, through that, what the eye can see.

The monitor is the range limiter, not the eye. Think about it.

[quote=vinniepics]

Good riffs, Vinnie, really good riffs!!

I see an issue with this pic that has nothing to do with coloration. It has a problem with dimensionality.

I'm talking about how the distribution of light and shade in a flat image can clearly depict 3 dimensional form and shape. That's what doesn't happen in this image. Actually, the opposite is true.

My mind keeps trying to figure out where everything is. The fibrous tangle at the top of the stump is really confuses the image. It's disorienting.

Anybody else have this problem?

Start by getting a firm grip on the nature of the problem.

Is you present camera malfunctioning, or is it just plain inadequate? A new camera will fix that.

Or, are you not using your camera correctly? A new camera won't fix that. You may need to spend the time and effort necessary to learn to use a digital canera properly. If you read the manual and don't understand it, seek outside help.

Truth is, modern digital cameras are highly engineered and if you use default settings and have even a minimal understanding of photography, you're going to get entirely workable image files. The type of settings that I'm talking about is the multitude of those beyond shutter speed and f/ stop. In order to be in control of those you need to know what you're doing. If you mess it up, almost any of it: bad pix.

Most digital cameras have a general reset button. For a start, seek it out and do a reset. Take some more pictures using one of the automatic modes (program, aperture priority, shutter priority) and if your pictures improve you know where the problem was.

Shooting raw files, incidentally, instantly makes you responsible for many different settings. If you're not sure about them, shoot jpgs.

If you don't want to dedicate time and energy to learning about all those complications, buy a simpler (i.e., more automatic) camera. No dishonor there, and you'll be a lot happier with the result.

Using Photoshop is a sign that your photography interests are a at least a bit beyond casual. In a nutshell, post processing in Photoshop or another app like it gives you a control of the content and quality of your images in a way that is vastly beyond anything that you could ever accomplish with camera alone. That requires learning and dedication too, but can be every bit as rewarding and satisfying as good camera work itself.

Good luck!

Good discussion of dynamic range, but how about a mention of the fact that, by far, the greatest limitation of dynamic range is the device upon which we view digital images: the computer monitor.

Much of what happens in post processing is dedicated to tone mapping and other alterations of digital input/output relationships, compressing what comes out of the camera into something that displays appropriately on your phosphor screen.

It's easy to prove to yourself: pull up a file in almost any image processor and push the exposure slider back and forth. Clarity of highlight or shadow detail depends on slider position but you can't display it all at once without a lot of processing, which might well include what we know as HDR.

High HDR monitors are a mostly thing of the future, and they will cost a lot of money.

Tell us what you're trying to learn that you didn't know before, and where you're trying to learn it.

So put in $100, or $200. It's not like you're giving the money away or pouring it down an insurance rat hole.

That cowboy has really skinny legs. Why is he lying on his back with one foot in the air?

Good bet that you're red-green color deficient. Are you?

Close, but not quite. Cow magnets are cylindrical, about 0.5 inch diameter, have rounded ends and are made of shiny non-corrodable metal. The magnet settles permanently in the cow's first stomach (the rumen) and collects metal fragments there.

They are used to prevent "hardware disease", a nasty situation in which ingested nails or other sharp metallic fragments penetrate the front end of the rumen wall and cause chronic peritonitis, associated digestive disorders and sometimes fatal infections.

I had a collection of them at one time, but can't find a single one right now. Maybe later.

They are strong enough, incidentally, to scramble magnetic information on disks or other photographic media. (Whew! almost forgot to bring it back to photography)

Couldn't agree more, Marvin, it's a no-brainer.

Do you break stuff a lot?