will king

Do you even understand what goes into shooting into dramatic light while maintaining dynamic range? Look at those pretty models you shoot and look at Marc's portfolio and tell me who has the harder job of making an image look good. Shooting in a studio with controlled and even light is a bit easier than shooting outdoors in an uncontrolled environment with extreme changes in light. Please give us one example of one of your cheap tricks sunset shots.

Juha, I am a believer but I won't get into a drawn out debate with you here. If you want to discuss it, I'll be more than happy to do that offline. Just shoot me an email.

 

About shooting sunsets. You say that they're easy. I guess shooting anything is easy, right? It's making them look good that's the hard part, and that could be said about any genre of photography. Take a look at all the over rated fashion and nude photos here. People rate them high based on the beauty of the woman and not the skill of photographer.

 

Do me a favor and browse through the portfolios of Marc Adamas and David Clapp. When you can make photos of the same quality than I won't think your comments are ignorant. Until then, your comments are just that.

I'm afraid you're mistaken Pete. It was banned. ;)

<i> <b> Younes Bounhar, Feb 18, 2008; 10:30 a.m.

 

I think you should visit some galleries here such as Marc Adamus' and David Clapp's, then you tell me that sunsets are cheap tricks...Sunsets and sunrises just happen to give you dramatic lighting which can turn a good landscape into a great one...taking a good landscape photo at sunset is not easy feat...

 

</i> </b>

 

<br>

<br>

Precisely. I was going to use those exact same photographers as examples as well. Some people just make some idiotic statements.

Another ignorant statement.

Ken, that's a pretty ignorant statement. Yes there are a lot of images of sunsets, but rarely are they captured well. The same could be said about any other category. Shooting into dramatic light while maintaining dynamic range is extremely difficult. Think it isn't? Take your Fisher Price camera and try it some time.

Take a look the portfolio of Marc Adamus here. He just switched from the 17-40mmL to the 16-35mmL II. He states that edge to edge sharpness is superior on the 16-35mmL II.

The 135mmL f/2 is my favorite lens. It's the sharpest lens I own, even sharper than my 100mm macro. Even wide open, this lens is sharp. The bokeh is creamy smooth. Definitely worth every penny.

Oh, and that's without any noise reduction.

I thought the 5D was good with low light. The 1D Mark III blows it away.<div></div>

<i> I shot a lot of low light things like concerts and in the old film days, I routinely shot at 800-3200 ISO and I just don't see my DSLR performing better under those conditions. </i>

<br>

<br>

Try shooting with a 1D Mark III and you'll change your mind.

Close Tim, but not quite. It appears that the system randomly chooses images that are rated 6.4 or above which is a good starting point by excludes a lot of images that are excellent but perhaps does not appeal to the masses that rate images, not to mention the images that are Critique Only. So why not mix it up a bit? I'm sure the elves don't agree on the same image when selecting the POW. Why not allow some runner ups to be displayed on the Daily sampling of our members' work?

Josh, I don't think deleting the image is the answer. Why not have the elves or some other selection committee choose the photos that get displayed on the homepage. I've seen a lot of very good images that do not get high ratings and for those images to be excluded from the blind system that ONLY chooses higly rated photos, doesn't seem just.

Perhaps Josh would like to consider changing the selection method of photos

displayed on the homepage of photo.net (Daily sampling of our members' work)

 

It's painfully obvious that the system randomly chooses highly rated photos.

The issue with that is, some of the highest rated photos are the worst photos

only to be vaulted to the top by the packs of mate raters. But, that's a

another issue for another time. There currently is an image on the homepage

that depicts someone giving the middle finger to all the 3/3 raters out there.

This image received a plethora of 7/7 votes from members who share the feeling

of frustration of these low 3/3 voters. While I find this image humorous

because I understand the statement it's trying to make, I wouldn't think it's

an ideal image to have on the site's homepage for new members or visitors who

do not understand what it's trying to say other that F you. Just a thought.

A bit of a sloppy job, but spend a little more time on it and make it look neater. I used clone and healing tool in Photoshop. The other, easier way would be to simply crop it out.

Now you don't.<div></div>

Now you see it.<div></div>

Thanks Wilson. I'll be sure to post some in the "weekend" thread.

It's a little more than exposure and saturation. As stated previously, layer masks and blend modes are used. But again, I'd be interested in seeing your attempt at it. Just use one of your outdoor portrait raw files and let us see your results.

Mahalo Wilson. I miss Kauai already. ;) Manual makes much more sense. What do you do about white balance? I have the Expodisc? Is that a viable solution? Also, what should I aim for? Chest, head?

I'll be shooting indoor kid's basketball this weekend. I'll be armed with a 1D

Mark III, 40D, and I'll probably bring my 24-70mmL f/2.8, 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS,

135mmL f/2, and 50mm f/1.4. I'm not scared to bump up my ISO to 1600, maybe

even 3200, as the 1D MIII is remarkable with low noise. My question is, what

is consdered to be a fast enough shutter speed to be able to freeze action and

make images that are sharp for basketball? I'll probably be shooting in AV,

wide open. Thanks.

Fair enough. I suppose a lot has to do with the lighting at the time of exposure as well.

Oh, I forgot to mention that she uses a gaussian blur and then reduces the opacity of the layer. So, again...LR and ACR does not have those features.

Yes, I have tried in LR and ACR to no avail. That doesn't mean it can't be done by someone else. If you think you can do it, please try. I'd be interested in seeing your results. That sounded a bit rude, but that's not my intention. I'm genuinely interested in knowing if it can be done in LR or Raw.

Fair enough Tony. Thanks for responding back.