burke

<p>Good points and I agree with all of you! I hope this isn't a new trend. This area is well below the state average in home value and behind in terms of when prices started to rise, which has only been the past year or so. So I don't know if I'll hear more of this from other agents or not...<br> I might be better off focusing my efforts elsewhere rather than an office that doesn't care if the photographer gets paid or not.</p>

<p >I've always been paid by the realtor. But I was invited to and attended a realtor's sales meeting recently and in the discussion one agent had the idea of getting the seller to pay for my photography services. All of a sudden the other agents seemed to think that was a great idea too! The one that brought this up even said "That way if the check bounces it's not my problem". The broker didn't help either, he stated the seller would then 'own' the photos and could go to another agent/office if they wanted. Huh? </p> <p >I work for and get paid by owners that rent their homes but this caught me off guard, I've never had a realtor ask or even suggest this before. I see (unforeseen) problems from the seller micro-managing to the realtor making promises I can't deliver... to what?</p> <p >I don't like the idea (maybe because it's new?). I wonder if it's even worth considering a way to do it. Charge more, offer less, or business as usual as long as I get paid? I just think there's going to be problems down the road.</p> <p >If anyone has ideas or comments I'd love to hear it.</p>

<p>Randy - I missed your post but yes, I am considering a different camera - the D750. I was just hoping to be able to see the expected difference of another 2.5 stops compared to what the D300 does. I haven't been able to find example photos.</p> <p>And I hope I didn't clutter peoples inbox like mine with the pictures I posted, didn't mean to do that. I think I have that turned off now...</p>

<p>That's good to hear John! I just hope I'm not expecting too much from whatever camera I decide on...</p>

<p>Some one-shot images I've done with the Nikon D300, Nikkor 12-24 f4 DX, SB800 speedlight(s). The house lighting doesn't get a chance to add much ambience.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019132-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /></p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019133-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /></p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019134-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /></p>

<p>From the original image below compared to a camera with 2.5 stops more dynamic range, can I expect to get the best of both worlds of the other two images but in one shot without any post adjustments?</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019111-lg.jpg" alt="" width="674" height="542" /><br> <br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019112-lg.jpg" alt="" width="674" height="542" /></p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18019110-lg.jpg" alt="" width="674" height="542" /></p>

<p>Edward,<br> You had it right the first time I think, I just don't want to fool myself into thining I can get those results with a sub $2k body. You're right too about needing lots of power. I have three SB800 speedlights and sometimes that's not enough. Shadows are a problem too. Bouncing or umbrellas help but that cuts the light. I used to carry a studio light roughly twice the output as all three speedlights but with it I had to shoot with EVERYTHING in FULL manual. That became too awkard and time consuming in a hurry.</p> <p>Fred,<br> Now I see it! Right under Edit In is Photo Merge. Talk about tunnel vision. Anyway, I gave it a try and the results are good, very similar to what I was getting in the 32bit tiff from Photoshop with half the effort! Not bad, promising even, still not quite what I want. </p> <p>But like I said I'm trying to stay away from HDR if possible and improve my single shot technique with an improved camera. If that's not enough HDR is plan B. </p>

<p>Edward - Your estimated 14-16 stops, is that the range of your camera or the range contained within the image? Either way it looks pretty amazing. Thanks for the offer, but with all due respect THAT’S NOT FAIR! ;-) I can’t afford to get out of the prosumer category so I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to pixel-peep a Hasselblad image. Egads, you want me to mortgage my house?!?</p> <p>Fred - Yes to both, but do you really mean Edit In -> Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop? I’ve tried PS CS6 and LR/PS CC, just installed the CC trial a few days ago (I have CS6 & LR 5 perpetual license). The results are close enough to be called identical.</p> <p>Brian - Sounds like we're after the same thing. I’ve done the layers thing in PS and you’re right about the straight lines of a window frame. Not too bad when it’s a one-lite door or window, but 15-lite French doors are tedious, same with vertical blinds. Respectfully I disagree though, what I’m after is doable in one shot. I just have to use lights! I’m just hoping to be able to use less power in them, see more natural ambient light or 'house' lighting, or simply end up with better looking photos.</p> <p>Ellis - I haven’t tried Enfuse yet, it may be an option but right now I’m just trying to judge improvements in a single raw image.</p> <p>Antonio & Fred - Does LR 6 really have built-in HDR? I’ve install the LR CC trial but it seems to still use Photoshop for the actuall HDR merge, then returns it to LR. I’m assuming LR CC and LR 6 are the same right now?</p> <p>Fred - I don’t think I’d like to go with you on vacation!</p>

<p>Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned HDR because that's actually what I'm trying to stay away from in this particular instance:</p> <p>In a Single Image - I'm just trying to see what an additional 2.5 stops of dynamic range would look like compared to what I get now from my D300. Such as - look at ONE shot from my 12 stop dynamic range camera that has both highlights and shadows clipped. Use Lightroom to reduce the exposure 1.25 stops and view the highlights that are no longer clipped and compare that to highlights that were clipped previously.<br> Do the same with shadows, increase the exposure 1.25 stops and gauge the now un-clipped shadows to what was clipped before.</p> <p>Then the question: Can I assume the un-clipped extremes of the two adjustments would be similar to a Single Image from a 14.5 stop Dynamic Range CAMERA? Not an HDR image, and before exposure adjustments in Lightroom.</p> <p>OR</p> <p>Will an image from a 14.5 stop DR camera just have more detail to recover in the clipped areas?</p> <p>OR... a combination of the two?</p>