Man, you've got one hell of a backyard. Any pictures of it during daytime?
I have to agree. That looks pretty neat.
I would love to look out my window and see something like that. Gorgeous shot.
2006-11-20 03:20 am (UTC)
Woah, that actually came out pretty good.
After I get back from Portland, we gotta go around SF at night on a photo rampage.
I was seeing if there was a remote-shutter release that would also allow you to remotely change some of the settings (either the back thumb wheel or the finger wheel), but no such thing exists. :(
Did you go hard core and use the CFn function to flip the mirror up, wait 2 seconds, then shoot the picture to reduce shake from the mirror movement? :)
2006-11-20 03:28 am (UTC)
No, didn't use the CFn for that. That probably would've been better. 2 second delay wouldn't been enough for tripod shake too, then I could've saved 40-50 seconds total (4-5 shots) and had less cloud movement (they were moving fast)
2006-11-20 04:28 am (UTC)
You can totally leave this comment filtered =)
Now that you mention the cloud motion, i kind of like the effect. I hadn't really appreciated it before, but it creates a soft fuzziness that offsets the harder resolution of the foreground. You'd actually get excellent composition focusing on the pond, with the path leading down, etc, if the heater wasn't so bright and distracting.
(It's, uh, very Bob Ross, actually, but i mean that in the "approachable principles of composition" way, not the "a monkey with Parkinson's could paint that, you uncouth hack!" way.)
I find that mirror shake really only has a noticable effect from 2 to 1/30 or so seconds. A shorter time frame is quick enough to not see the blur and a longer time frame is long enough to incorporate the blur into the image in an unnoticable fashion.
Can't you use the camera in some sort of slave mode where you control it via a laptop? I can do that with the Nikon D70, so it might be something worth looking at.
2006-11-20 07:33 am (UTC)
I seem to recall looking into it recently and gphoto couldn't handle it. (it could download pics via PTP, but not remote control mode....)
I find it interesting how HDR photos somehow look computer rendered.
well technically, they are.
nice back yard, dude. You must be like... rich or something
2006-11-20 07:57 am (UTC)
You should've seen it a few days ago... it was entirely weeds.
I know this will sound weird but that looks nice and cozy.
Maybe I've been living in NYC for too long.
You didn't follow the HDR tradition of totally overblowing the saturation and clipping all the dark off :)
How many images and what EV interval did you use?
What sucks about the CFn mirror lockup is that it's incompatible with continuous shutter mode, so you have to do the lockup delay by hand. Makes long composites
2006-11-20 07:42 am (UTC)
I know what you mean about the saturation.... when I went anywhere near where I wanted to go, it started looking like shit. The colors were totally wrong. I guess you lose that? It went way too red whereas the originals looked more green and yellow.
The 4 images were f/2.8 at 5", 2"5, 1", 0"4. ISO 400.
The better image (with my paid copy, not a screenshot of the preview image) is at:http://www.picpix.com/brad/pic/00b022t8/g580
(and that version goes hires)
That looks totally surreal, I love it.
i must say i am amazed!
that looks like old silk chinese painting.
Nice! Looks more like a painting than a photo to me.
I'll have to try this myself one day.
I do believe that qualifies as "gorgeous". Makes me want to do that from my family's new house—we have a nice view...
It looks very Lord Of The Rings to me. Nice.
2006-11-20 09:50 pm (UTC)
HDR in camera.
How long do you think until cameras have an HDR function build in? Cameras not being able to reproduce nearly as many stops as the human eye has been one of their biggest limitations since the beginning (if trying to produce an image true to the original that is).
It seems like you should be able to do this in camera (when in HDR mode, expose more for pixels under X brightness and less for those over X...then some gradient for the middle values).
It seems to me that this feature would sell consumer point and shoot cameras like crazy. I don't know why they haven't done it yet but there's probably a good reason. Perhaps it's tricker than I think.
2006-11-20 10:28 pm (UTC)
Re: HDR in camera.
I've been thinking the same thing. I think even a firmware upgrade should do it on most cameras. Just sample the CMOS censor multiple times during an exposure? Maybe I'm missing something. So instead of a 5 shots of varying shutter speed, you take one long one, but within that, there are 5 actual RAW files produced, at varying times. Then the camera makes the EXR file and lets you mess with it later. (or even do tone-mapping in-camera, like white balance is done now....)
I think one consumer camera has already gone down this road a little, but not all the way. I forget its name, though.... Fuji something I think.
2006-11-21 05:10 pm (UTC)
Re: HDR in camera.
Make it so that you can view the results on the viewfinder and you're in the money.
2006-11-21 05:11 pm (UTC)
Re: HDR in camera.
Make it so that you can see the results on the viewfinder and you're in the money.
Looking at that shot, I feel like a zombie should jump out at any second with a rocket launcher or something.
2006-11-21 12:04 am (UTC)
exactly what I was thinking.
If you look in the top left corner and squint a little you can just barely make out something odd.
2006-11-21 03:59 am (UTC)
kinda sux how HDR stuff brings out the noise in teh image eh?
(as seen in the black sky)
my first experiment with HDR was this image: