And here is another one

[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/115.jpg[/IMG]

AHhhhhahahahaha I got it! YAY!!!!

Well here's the example:


[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/waterhDR2.jpg[/IMG]

MIke,

You've repeated exactly what I said; Shoot in RAW, open a RAW image sofware, save DIFFERENT EXPOSURES of the same photograph in JPEG files.

THen use photomatix to allign the DIFFERENTLY EXPOSED shots, tone mapping, save new file.

THen Photoshop to adjust all further settings.

John:
I have uploaded the photos on photobucket. Can you tell me in simple words, what I have to click on, what I have to copy, in order to view the images. And if the whole process is right, should I be able to see the photos when I click on "preview Comment"?

I've tryed both the link button, the image, the image beefore and after, only the link, but nothing appears in the preview.

And honestly this is possibly the most complicated way of uploading photos in the world... I've been redesigning my whole website for the past 2 days, and that is a joke compared to this...

Cheers,
Nathan


Nathan

Hello there!

I have experimented only a little with HDR. At some point last year I actually got into it a lot and came to the conclusion that there is no point trying to allign different images.

What I figured was the best thing to do, was to shoot in RAW, develop 5 shots +/- 1 and +/- 2 stops and the correct exposure. Save them all, and open them in photomatix giving the correct values of exposures.

After the merging, the tone-mapping is very important, and I think the best wasy to go is the lowest possible HDR range, because the rest can be re-worked on photoshop. So save the file, with the "not too weird looking" HDR in jpeg, open it in photoshop, and adjust contrast, saturation, and all these to give the proper look desired.

This is an example.

http://www.woophy.com/download/444738

(Honestly I've tried everything to upload images to this comment, but I can't manage to do it. Either from another site, or even by uploading the photo to my profile here... If anybody can help with that, i'd be grateful!)

Nathan

Completely agree with Hyram.

I have recently purchased a lens from SRS, and the service is perfect.
Bought the lens on the phone on thursday at 9, received it the next day at 11. Incredible.

I then had a little trip to try some other lenses, and enjoyed a long chat with Chris, and the other guys at the store.

Hope this helps!

Nathan

Just because you mentionned it. If you have to upgrade from anything better than a 18-55, in my opinion you have to go for the DA* 16-50mm.
I just bought it, and I am stunned every time I look at a photo I've taken. Completely superior to any other zoom I have ever tried (and i am no exaggerating) and probably comparable to a good prime lens on many apertures. And the issues about quality have been solved long ago, not to mention that you would want to buy from a UK store, with warranty, and eventual immediate replacement for any inconvenience. The lens is absolutely amazing.

Hope this helps.

I just bought the big brother 16-50... and I am really impressed.

After all my considerations regarding sharpness, detail, colour, and general IQ, (which leaded onto only buying primes...) I had to buy the DA* because of work committments.

What a lens this is. I have no idea how it compares to the 16-45 which I have never even tried, but I am really really surprised by the quality of this lens.

Hope you enjoy your new toys, I'll enjoy mine!!!

Nathan

Hi there!
I might actually come!
I am not working, and I should have a new lens to play with...
Do you know how much the entry costs? and where is it?

Talk soon,
Nathan

Hello there,

I think that the 100mm macro is definitely too long for the type of use you have in mind. I have the M version and it is a brilliant lens, but I wouldn't be able to fit 2 people talking from less than 5-6 m. away, which is too far...

the 70mm ltd seems like a great lens, in my opinion I'd prefer something a bit bigger to put on my K10 - but you should be fine with the focal lenght.

I went to SRS yesterday, and tried some very interesting lenses whilst having a great chat with Chris. - The 77mm ltd is absolutely stunning, and if you can afford it, it looks like the perfect lens for you.

Otherwise, if your budget is a bit lower, I would follow John's advice and get the 50mm f1.4 which is also an incredible lens. Its a bit wider, but it is really a matter of 1-2 steps foward to achieve the focal lenght of the 70/77. Brilliant lens, really fast, and quite sharp even wide open, it is usable indoors, in low light and the results are awesome. (I've even shot live bands in really dark clubs with it, and without flash it's always given fantastic results.

Even though I am about to buy myself the 16-50, I wouldn't reccomend it for this use. I think you want the shots to look "magical" and the ltd's are all about magic....

Regards,
Nathan

Great point hefty!

I haven't considered the 43mm for a very simple reason; I have an FA50 f1.4, and this is so close to the 43 that it really would be a matter of 1 step backwards to take the same shot. Step which i don't mind taking, as the 50 is a fantastic lens, and not only very fast, it is incredibly sharp a bit stopped down, and it works very well for portraits. So no reason for the 43 for me!

Now, your point about the film vs digital use of these lenses is a very deep one; in fact these lenses are so precise and so sharp that they become superior to the K10 10mp sensor, and it is hard to see the difference with a good zoom (Like Matt was saying with the 24-90) or an excellent zoom like the 2 DA* lenses.

POint is though, and I have been thinking about this for a while, that sensors are only getting bigger, and sharper, and more "detailed". already the K20 is beyond the quality of the old 18-55 I - so they had to make a new kit lens. According to this reasoning, the old ltd's will only see more application in the future. Because the Kmount shoud still be the same, I might be able to use them on the next K30 or the next FF camera which is going to expose for the same size sensor as the 35mm film.

Now, assuming the fact that I am not interested in the DA* zooms, and I am looking forward to replacing one of my 2 K10 bodies with something new, probably the body after the K20 in a year or so, I can only see the benefit of having 2 lenses which are usable with better and better sensors and will always produce the best possible IQ.

This can all be nullyfied by the first person that explains to me that the digital sensors are simply "different" from the old film, and therefore whatever pixel count (Sharpness definition etc..) is achieved in the future, the '35mm film purpose built lenses', will never produce such astonishing resutls on Digital sensors. (The physical difference between digital sensor and film - I know of - and the fact that there is a difference in the angle that light exposes the sensor... ) Can anybody prove though, that this is really what is happening?

Thank you for all your replies, this is all being very helpful!

Nathan