On 12/25/2010 3:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-12-25 09:29:36 -0800, peter <> said:
>
>> On 12/24/2010 10:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2010-12-24 18:28:20 -0800, peter <>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 12/24/2010 7:13 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-12-24 14:27:50 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul Furman said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You really did need that f/11 here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had the Tokina 11-16mm on by then. The shot was 1/8 sec. @ f/3.5,
>>>>>>> 11mm, ISO 1600.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oops, so much for my incisive technical comments <g>.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW; I had to resort to HDR in some rooms, and that was nightmarish.
>>>>> This was shot in Hearst's office just after the library shot. The
>>>>> difference in lighting was dramatic. It seemed like candle light in
>>>>> comparison, and the 5 shot -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 exposures took a what
>>>>> seemed like a very slow handheld 1.1 sec lifetime to shoot. The
>>>>> shots in
>>>>> the indoor "Roman" pool were even tougher.
>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC_6445_HDRw.jpg >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well done. 1.1 sec per shot? I am happy if I can hand hole for .1
>>>> second.
>>>
>>> Actually that was 1.1 sec. for the 5 shot series. It seemed to take
>>> forever as each shot was perceptibly longer than the previous one, and
>>> maintaining aim at a fixed point, as well as holding steady for the
>>> final 3 shots was the really difficult thing.
>>>
>>
>> I would not even attempt a hand held HDR. BTW what software did you use?
>
> NIK HDR EfexPro
> < http://www.niksoftware.com/hdrefexpro/usa/entry.php >
>
I've heard good things about that program.
I'll try when I get back.
--
Peter
Similar Threads
