The Photomatix version is below.

The key difference seems to be that you have more flexibility with Photomatix. CS3 only gives me one slider to adjust the image, and the adjustment is very broad. Photomatix lets me adjust in several different ways (as you can see at http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tut...sic/index.html ). The following image is not the default, but had some adjustments. I haven't read the manual, the adjustments are coarse, but it should give you an idea of what Photomatix can do:

I think that probably applies if you're out in it all day. But if it's a driving rainstorm and you just jump out of your car for a few pics? Common sense would say to use a cover.

I'm also a fan of Photomatix for HDR over CS3. Have to be a little careful though, if you overcook it, it will really jack up shadow noise. Also, I hear new things are on the way for photoshop's HDR conversion tools, hopefully soon as controls for both still seem quite limited for what HDR is capable of.

CS3 will HDR any format you can open but, it has to be a real HDR meaning true different exposures, not just different processes of the same raw file. It won't process the HDR if the input images have the same source in the EXIF data. You can get around it with a script that rips that data out but when possible you're way better off getting multiple exposures anyway. Photomatix will let you process multiple files from the same raw without all that trouble. You won't get the same range as making one from multiple exposures but that's not always possible if you have a shot where want to make an HDR of stopped action, in that case a single raw is the way to go.

This shot (posted earlier) is obviously photoshopped but the ground work for the overall tone was done in Photomatix. It was an HDR made from a single raw.

no time to crop or process any of these, but here are a few i took yesterday of some skateboarders at golden gate park.

when i take pics of random people, i typically ask if they would like a copy emailed to them. the last kid (black shirt) was the only one who had an email address, so he got them all...


...he was the only one not to land the jump successfully. tsk tsk tsk

I like it, though part of me wants to see that classic/cliche centered dock shot. It's good to have tension in a photo, but for me this seems like a little too much tension. Otherwise, technically awesome with the processing and all.

Did some portraits over the weekend of my wife's personal trainer's family. It was a fun time AND he traded the work for sessions with him. I learned quite a bit on this job. Here are a few:







The last one is notable, because I'm trying to learn and compare the various ways to convert photos to B&W. I never thought it could be so hard to get the results you want. "Desaturate" in Photoshop just doesn't cut it.

You did a great job with these, especially the women shot and all that white clothing on the right side...so hard to get that exposed as well as you did.

I still have never gotten a good grasp on conversion to b&w, but you shot looks pretty damn good to me. The only thing I would look for it a slightly darker background as the tone seems to match the girls face too closely reducing the overall contrast.

Nice work.

Don't know if you guys have heard of this program Helicon Focus - but much like the HDR method of taking many shots and merging, this program actually lets you take multiple images at different depths of field, merges them and thus everything from front to back is perfectly tack sharp. Cheats the depth of field limitations. very cool.

http://www.heliconsoft.com/focus_samples.html

Finally bought new batteries for my film camera (Canon Elan II) and have been using that a bit lately. I got a roll of film developed and I scanned a couple shots:





The only thing I've learned so far is that my scanner is terrible and also very dirty and that film grain is not the same as digital noise.

I developed film from the two cameras I found at my Mom's. I learned that film and developing is expensive and I'm glad I switched to digital. (I took over 1400 frames with my digital camera this weekend (shooting sports). At $9 per roll, that would be $568 in film and processing costs!)

(Actually, I haven't even picked the film up yet. As for scanning, I'm having the photolab create a CD for me from scans of the negatives.)

I like this too. I think you should burn the background skyscrapers a little more and a little on the pier to give it more depth. Plus you have dirt on you sensor - still like it though!

Still trying to figure out the whole portraits thing. My niece asked me to shoot her Senior Portraits for her and I hesitantly complied. Here are a few:







I learned two things:

1. Landscapes are easier.
2. Buying a Wacom tablet was the best thing I could have done for myself and I don't know why I didn't get one a long time ago.

Recently picked up the film. Disappointing. The 50mm on the Pentax has some kind of weird yellow color cast to it. It's visible in the viewfinder, but I stupidly thought it wouldn't show up on the film. But it does. Also some incomplete frames, but I don't know if it was fault of the processor or if the camera is faulty. The Nikon is fine, though.

I don't think I'll ever be using either camera very much though. 35mm offers no advantages over a DSLR and numerous disadvantages (including $12.99 to develop each roll at Rite Aid, I definitely need to find a cheaper place to develop film). If I ever wanted to use film, it would be for an improvement over digital, meaning medium or large format. Still cool to have my Dad's old equipment, though.

That's too bad. I'm sorry it was a disappointment. Do you have a Costco membership? I think their film processing is pretty reasonable.

I'm going through the same thing. I want to use my film camera, but I have no real good convincing reason to. I mean, given that I have a cropped sensor body, it's nice to see the real 35mm frame with my lenes, but other than that, what will you probably do? Take the film prints and scan them so you can post them to Flickr. haha.

Sometimes I like doing "product" shots to test out some new equipment or lighting techniques. I recently bought a Wacom tablet and took a couple of photos this morning. I'll include the technical info that I gave in the descriptions on Flickr:



Strobist info: Inside of DIY macro studio box. 285HV at 1/16 power shooting into right side of box. 580EXII at 1/64 on a lightstand shooting straight down through the top. Fired with ebay triggers.



Strobist info: 580EXII set at 1/16th power fired into umbrella at camera right. DIY v card just to the left of the tablet.

Nice shots. Always good to experiment. My wife was giving me lots of strange looks yesterday. Why? Because I spent an hour taking self-portraits trying out various lighting positions. One thing I did learn was that the software that allows you to remotely control the Canon 40D via laptop hooked up via USB cable is really cool. Makes self-portraits so easy when used with Live View.

LOL, I know exactly what you mean. My wife has gotten used to seeing flashes in the next room, having various tripods and stands everywhere, having her photograph taken at random times, and me pulling her aside for some test shots.

I might have shared this one in another thread before, but I was going through some photos and found one of my old favorites:

i'm really impressed by some of the stuff in this thread. i don't know anything about setting up shots, i'm just a point and shooter. i have larger versions online, if anyone wants the link, PM me.

here's some of my very amateur photography:

taken last week in a NJ park close to my house


my parents' black cat "furball"


part of a 9/11 memorial in NJ


part of an orchard in NY state


horse trailor, i just like how vintage it came out

Some of your guys' pictures are absolutely amazing. I don't by any means consider myself anything above a noobie; these are just of my pictures I like.

Athens:



Slovenia:



Portrait(?); Bosnia



My face ruins this picture imo ...

Leave-changing in Paris:



I think the last one has too much content; perhaps I should have left room in the middle for more landscape(?).

A couple new digital pictures, and an old film picture..

Great Falls, VA

Nikon D200, 17-55 2.8 Nikkor


Nikon D200, 70-300 AFS VR Nikkor


Nikon N90s, Cape Town South Africa 2003, Fuji 100 Negative Film, scanned on Nikon Coolscan V

My favorite of the bunch. Good call on making the shot crooked. Adds some tension to the photo.

I always try to take photographs with foreground trees framing a background or landscape, but I rarely have any success. I like this one.

These are all really great. Can you provide some exposure info? I haven't tried doing long exposure water shots before and these are great examples.