Re: [SI] Night Shots is posted!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by peter, Dec 25, 2010.

  1. peter

    peter Guest

    On 12/24/2010 7:13 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-12-24 14:27:50 -0800, Paul Furman <> 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.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Dec 25, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. peter

    peter Guest

    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 <> 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?

    --
    Peter
    peter, Dec 25, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. peter

    peter Guest

    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 <> 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
    peter, Dec 25, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SMS
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,159
    John Turco
    Jul 18, 2008
  2. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Night Shots is posted!

    Robert Coe, Dec 24, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    332
    tony cooper
    Jan 4, 2011
  3. otter

    Re: Night Shots is posted!

    otter, Dec 25, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    480
    Tom Yost
    Jan 14, 2011
  4. Pete

    Re: [SI] Night Shots is posted!

    Pete, Dec 29, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    443
    Eric Stevens
    Jan 10, 2011
  5. RichA

    High ISO posted shots from small-sensored cameras

    RichA, Apr 12, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    150
    Bryan
    Apr 13, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page