Can you identify this part of the California coast?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

YAY! What threw me off was the cloudy hazy water in the pic. But I have been there more than a few times and compared it with my pics so I thought it had to be it. I love that area and yes it's still kind of unknown to some LA locals. Especially since you can't even see it from the PCH. I drove by it plenty of times before someone told me it existed.

 

 

The misty, mystical water is a result of the long exposure. It's just a look that I love, although of course, I don't always do it, or sometimes I do it less.

 

When I was in high school, we would sometimes go down, a group of 10, 15, 20 of us, and go sleep overnight at El Matador. I wouldn't recommend this now. I've heard the patrols are far more vigilant. But I always remembered this being a special beach, a very beautiful beach.

 

I'll hafta check out La Jolla! Thanks for the tip. There's also a couple of other beautiful beaches, Corona Del Mar and parts of Laguna, that I may want to photograph at some point. But El Matador has a lot going for it, so I may also return there and photograph some more, perhaps in October when the sky brings those beautiful epic clouds.

[UstadKhanAli]

Long exposure photography can really change the look of the water. There seems to be a lot of comments about this, so I thought I'd show you an example:

 

Above is a photo taken at El Matador State Beach. This is a ten-second exposure. No colors were added in Photoshop.

 

~~~

 

Same scene, but with a three-second exposure instead of ten seconds. You can already see quite a large difference.

 

And of course, if I had taken this photo with a faster shutter speed, say less than a second, it would freeze the motion of the water and the waves more. And of course, the water would look much darker.

 

Again, without adding any color at all in post-processing, the look of the photo can change quite a bit just by changing the shutter speed. And the rest of the colors - the color of the sky, for instance - is simply a matter of being there at the right time and aiming the camera at a good angle to capture the light most effectively.

[Huh?]

Dammit....El Matador is the beach I was thinking about!!! It was on the tip of my danged tongue but eluded me. Wifey and I had our casual sitting shot there by our wedding photographer.....me sitting playing my old Ovation Balladeer while the fiancee gazes lovingly into my eyes..........{censored}, what happened to THOSE days? Anyway, I recognized the place immediately but could not remember the name of the damn beach. I was gonna say El Capitan but then that seemed wrong........Point Dume somehow stuck......nice one Ryst!

Sweet picture also.

I really want to get a 14-24 or thereabouts prime lens...something really nice, and do some HDR stuff with it.

[A. Einstein]

exposure time 3 months

[UstadKhanAli]

Dammit....El Matador is the beach I was thinking about!!! It was on the tip of my danged tongue but eluded me. Wifey and I had our casual sitting shot there by our wedding photographer.....

 

I frequently get El Matador SB and El Pescadero SB mixed up.

 

Sweet picture also.

 

Thanks!

 

I really want to get a 14-24 or thereabouts prime lens...something really nice, and do some HDR stuff with it.

 

If you're talking about the Nikkor or something similar, have a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Fast lens, very sharp, with some pundits saying that it's faster than the Nikkor 12-24mm, which is considerably more expensive. They're also built like tanks, the Tokinas are.

 

I haven't done HDR stuff at all. However, with these El Matador photos and some of the other photos that I took in Mendocino and Santa Cruz this summer, I processed my photo in RAW with two different exposures, one for the sky, and one for the rest of the photo, and then blended them together, a sort of pseudo-HDR process which is not terribly unlike a photographer using a graduated neutral density filter for the sky, except that since the horizon is not perfectly flat, I have a little more control over it. Time-consuming? Sure. But it gets the sky the way it really looks instead of looking like a white, blown-out blob because I'm exposing the photo for so long.

 

But I haven't used Photomatix or Nik Software HDR or anything else. I don't like the really abnormal, "hyper-real" sort of look, and I realize that I don't have to make it look like that, but it seems so prevalent that I kinda shy away from it.

 

Besides, I get some people already thinking that I'm heavily processing my long exposure photos of the coast and the night sky because they don't understand the effect that long exposure photography can have on an image or don't understand what you can and cannot do with post-processing (or both). It's still perfectly natural, it's just that the image looks differently because the shutter is open longer. But no weird filters, no weird post-processing.

[UstadKhanAli]

BTW, I have a 50mm prime lens, the Nikkor f/1.4, and it is a sweet lens. I use it mostly for close-up/detail work, such as a few of the photos I took in Bodie ghost town this summer. And I also use it for taking photos at gigs/clubs. It looks great because it's nice and fast, so I can get a good fast shutter speed going because the lens lets in more light, thus reducing the blurring from movement a great deal.

 

Tomorrow, I'm going to photograph my friend's band, but I think I'm going to try the new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 wide-angle (I just got it in April), just for a completely different feel.

[Huh?]

I use a Canon though. I'll go look if Tokina makes a Canon mount. Thanks for the tip. Yeah I have Photomatix and lately I have been using the heck out of Topaz...I have their entire suite. It is a look I like....the Topaz "look".

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I use a Canon though. I'll go look if Tokina makes a Canon mount. Thanks for the tip. Yeah I have Photomatix and lately I have been using the heck out of Topaz...I have their entire suite. It is a look I like....the Topaz "look".

 

 

Whooops, sorry, I don't know why I thought you had a Nikon. Anyway, yes, they make a Canon mount as well.

 

Also, I heard that the new (latest) version of Nik Software's HDR software is supposed to be really good. A lot of it probably depends on whether you like their interface. I love it.

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks Rekel! Just trying to have fun and keep improving in photography and music!

[Rekel]

Thanks Rekel! Just trying to have fun and keep improving in photography and music!

 

 

You're doing an amazing job, Ken! I've send your pics to a bunch of friends of mine (including a few professional photographers) and they are all very impressed with your work. Please keep on posting your fine art here, my friend!

[rjt]

Ken, should have told me it was a photo thread in the title. I kind of skipped it because I don't know California very well. Glad I decided to drop into it. I like long exposures and can do a modest job with the one ND filter I have for my camera. I'll have to get some new shots of the Oregon coast. Just upgraded the old Sony to an Alpha 57 and am looking forward to giving that a good workout on my upcoming trip. Keep snapping and posting. Always enjoy your shots.

 

ps I do have the complete NIK stuff and either PSP or PSE has HDR built in. You are right, HDR doesn't have to make a shot look processed. Plus with RAW you can really use HDR with just one photo as you mentioned.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Ken, should have told me it was a photo thread in the title. I kind of skipped it because I don't know California very well. Glad I decided to drop into it. I like long exposures and can do a modest job with the one ND filter I have for my camera. I'll have to get some new shots of the Oregon coast. Just upgraded the old Sony to an Alpha 57 and am looking forward to giving that a good workout on my upcoming trip. Keep snapping and posting. Always enjoy your shots. ps I do have the complete NIK stuff and either PSP or PSE has HDR built in. You are right, HDR doesn't have to make a shot look processed. Plus with RAW you can really use HDR with just one photo as you mentioned.

 

 

Thanks. I've even done long exposure shots from circular polarizer filters, so one ND filter can definitely do the job, depending on what kind of light you've got going on.

 

With RAW, I was definitely able to expose for the sky and for everything else and carefully blend it in Photoshop. So I guess that's pseudo-HDR? I don't know. People have been doing that stuff for years in some manner, whether it's in the dark room with film or now with digital processing, so it's all good.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

You're doing an amazing job, Ken! I've send your pics to a bunch of friends of mine (including a few professional photographers) and they are all very impressed with your work. Please keep on posting your fine art here, my friend!

 

 

Thanks, I appreciate that!!

[Ernest Buckley]

Can you figure out where this is? Link to blog: http://kenleephotography.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/where-is-this-cool-looking-sea-cave/ As some of you know, I spent a lot of time photographing California, including the California coast. But while this was also taken in California, you might be quite surprised at its location! There are links to other photos besides this one on my blog.

Amazing photo Ken.

Can I use this as my desktop?

E

[UstadKhanAli]

Absolutely, EB! Thanks!!!!!

[Ernest Buckley]

Absolutely, EB! Thanks!!!!!

 

 

Thank you Ken.

[rjt]

Ken, I would argue that is (combining and blending just one pic) the origins of HDR. The original idea wasn't to get these "unusual" color palates you see today, it was to increase the detail in a photo so you could capture more detail than film or a digital sensor. Adams used to do this with film by dodging and burning parts. I use NIK, but often do what you do, use a photo in RAW and then change the sky or other detail area by over or under exposing a copy and blending them. If you remember the Stonehenge photo I put up, it was just a tad different than that. I used one photo, created a layer and after masking the henge, developed the sky differently than the henge (which was essentially a pretty "straight up" black and white conversion.) In many ways, I really prefer that to HDR plug ins because you don't modify those parts of the picture you like and think are exposed correctly.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Ken, I would argue that is (combining and blending just one pic) the origins of HDR. The original idea wasn't to get these "unusual" color palates you see today, it was to increase the detail in a photo so you could capture more detail than film or a digital sensor. Adams used to do this with film by dodging and burning parts. I use NIK, but often do what you do, use a photo in RAW and then change the sky or other detail area by over or under exposing a copy and blending them. If you remember the Stonehenge photo I put up, it was just a tad different than that. I used one photo, created a layer and after masking the henge, developed the sky differently than the henge (which was essentially a pretty "straight up" black and white conversion.) In many ways, I really prefer that to HDR plug ins because you don't modify those parts of the picture you like and think are exposed correctly.

 

 

I completely agree, Ray. I'm using "HDR" in the popular sense to mean that one is utilizing HDR software or plugins.

 

But as you're describing it with Adams dodging and burning parts, and how I'm combining and blending one photo in these coastal shots, you're right, it was done far earlier, and in fact was actually done in the 1850s:

 

 

The idea of using several exposures to fix a too-extreme range of luminance was pioneered as early as the 1850s by Gustave Le Gray to render seascapes showing both the sky and the sea. Such rendering was impossible at the time using standard methods, the luminosity range being too extreme. Le Gray used one negative for the sky, and another one with a longer exposure for the sea, and combined the two into one picture in positive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging#History_of_HDR_photography

 

 

And what you are describing with your Stonehenge photo is more what interests me, not so much HDR plugins or software...and that's more because I want to exert more control over what I want in the photo, even if that's more time-consuming.

 

So I'm not opposed at all to HDR photography, but am less interested in having HDR software or plugins take away some of my control over how the image comes out, and with just two images, I don't feel like I need HDR software to blend or do any of that yet.

 

This is, by the way, the reason I don't use star trails stacking software, but do it by hand in Photoshop. It's again that thing about control. Not because I'm a control freak - I'm definitely not - but because I "light paint" photos and want to have some control over how bright it is in the final photo, and I can do that by addressing individual shots in the "stacked" sequence.

[Huh?]

I really like the Bodie pictures. For my taste the top 4 of the old tree stump could have had more detail in the color of the sky....a touch more dramatic....more blue. I think it would enhance the foreground. But it's just my preference. I can see how a more traditional edit might go for realism over manipulation and the pale blue does have a nice effect. I like dramatic though. Did you try one where you pulled out the blue more?

They are all beautiful images. Very nice image capture Ken. I like that Nikon too. Thing is.....I'd get one and not be able to do what you do...LOL!! So I will just plod on with my old Canon.

In image #10....what is the diagonal line that starts under the H in "photography" and ends under the R and A? Is that a shooting star?

The camera data you presented is quite close between the two shots....small differences in ISO, shutter speed and F-Stop....yet I love the way the milky way really pops in that second image. I guess it was the time difference between images although the exif data is showing the exact same time between images and the same settings..... and showing it as 2:49pm so the camera time must be not set correctly.

Did you lay in two different skies or is that "as shot"? Maybe the use of timed multiple images is throwing off the exif data......showing all the data at the time the first shot triggered....and then for all subsequent images? I know you sometimes shoot 60 images or more at certain intervals and then combine some of them.

Anyway, the milky way one looks great. There is almost like a reflection of the tree in it. Awesome!! My favorite day one is the leaning tree #4. Gorgeous tree stump....it has so much "life" in it......like a Tim Burton character.

It's too bad in this day and age one has to watermark images to protect them......and thereby have a distraction across the image.

I shot a great picture of John Mayer from 6' away when he sat in with Jeff Beck at the El Rey. I later Googled John Mayer and lo and behold a guy had snatched two of my pictures for a blog page and refused to write me back when I asked him to at least credit me if he wanted to use them. Who know's how many people grabbed it by now from his website...even though I went directly and turned off sharing in Flickr. Even then people can copy and paste...or just drag them onto the desktop. Sucks.

Was I so damned tired last night that I thought I posted a reply about reckel and Albert fighting? It is not there anymore.........

[Huh?]

Ken, could you go into some real detail as to how you get that milky look...the almost cotton wool look in the water....yet still get darker detail in the rock? I see how the sky is blown out and I imagine a short exposure of the exact same shot (tripod) would give one a darker sky to lay in. But what was going on as far as the conditions, the time of day....was it hazy, overcast, bright....morning, magic hour etc etc and what filter did you use to stop down, ISO, shutter, F-stop....etc etc etc?

I'd really appreciate it if you would share your secrets 'cos I would love to try that.

I love how you go find the shots you want. Like a photography safari...LOL!! Unfortunately, with all I have going on I only get to pull out the camera when I am out on vacation or a day trip with the family.....and then it is usually happy snappy family shots with trying to grab an interesting one here and there......and being told to hurry up and keep up.

I remember up at Yosemite trying to set the camera up on a rock as I had no tripod and I had this gorgeous waterfall image in front of me. The kids were yelling it was scary (too high up) and the wife did not want me to stay behind...'cos the trail was sketchy and she needed help with the girls...... and I was so rushed. I almost imploded man. Even though I stayed behind a little, I ended up not getting the shot I wanted. I was trying for a long exposure on the waterfalls...inspired by Ken Lee BTW ......and I ended up scratching the bottom of my camera slightly on the rock I was using to prop it up.

Nothing bad but I haaaaaaaaaate scratches man......I have a real THING about that. It's why I cannot buy myself a brand new car or motorcycle. It's like the ketchup/mustard/food drip on the nice spotlessly clean and stylish shirt...... 10 minutes into arriving at your day trip destination..... and now you have to walk around all day like that.......knowing it is a stain that will never wash out. AAArgh!!!

[UstadKhanAli]

I really like the Bodie pictures. For my taste the top 4 of the old tree stump could have had more detail in the color of the sky....a touch more dramatic....more blue. I think it would enhance the foreground. But it's just my preference. I can see how a more traditional edit might go for realism over manipulation and the pale blue does have a nice effect. I like dramatic though. Did you try one where you pulled out the blue more?

 

Are you talking about the top four bristlecone pine photos on Page 3? If so, I think I'd probably agree with you. I could even do the two-exposure "HDRish" trick that Ray and I have been discussing to get more detail in the color of the sky, although it wouldn't be blue since it's primarily storm clouds.

 

I try really hard not to have really "abnormal" looking skies or anything like that. Again, this is just a matter of aesthetics. I've seen people have really detailed, abnormal looking skies that look fantastic. But if it's those top four photos of bristlecone pines, then yes, I think a bit more detail in the clouds would be great.

 

 

They are all beautiful images. Very nice image capture Ken. I like that Nikon too. Thing is.....I'd get one and not be able to do what you do...LOL!! So I will just plod on with my old Canon.

 

If we're talking cameras, I think the glass is probably more important than anything else. Not terribly unlike the signal chain, where most recording engineers would say that the microphone is more important than the mic preamp or the converters or the capture medium. Some would disagree, but it's all opinion.

 

 

In image #10.... what is the diagonal line that starts under the H in "photography" and ends under the R and A ? Is that a shooting star?

 

Which photo? Do you know the title? It's probably an airplane, but I think I may have gotten a shooting star in one of the photos. Is this the Patriarch Grove North Star Trails photo? If so, I don't see the diagonal line.

 

The camera data you presented is quite close between the two shots....small differences in ISO, shutter speed and F-Stop....yet I love the way the milky way really pops in that second image. I guess it was the time difference between images although the exif data is showing the exact same time between images and the same settings..... and showing it as 2:49pm so the camera time must be not set correctly.

 

The primary difference is that one was shot noticeably later in the evening. And yes, if that's what it's showing, then that's completely wrong. Weird because I always have my camera set correctly, so I don't know why it would show 2:49 pm in the EXIF data.

 

Did you lay in two different skies or is that "as shot"? Maybe the use of timed multiple images is throwing off the exif data......showing all the data at the time the first shot triggered....and then for all subsequent images? I know you sometimes shoot 60 images or more at certain intervals and then combine some of them.

 

Oh, yes, that could be it. There's a lot of photos that are combined to create that one, so the EXIF data would probably be wrong, although it might show the individual exposure of one, which would be 30 seconds.

 

Anyway, the milky way one looks great. There is almost like a reflection of the tree in it. Awesome!! My favorite day one is the leaning tree #4. Gorgeous tree stump....it has so much "life" in it......like a Tim Burton character.

 

I love the Milky Way shot as well, and the other one with the Tim Burtonesque feel, if it's the one I think you're talking about, was taken at late dusk, as the sky was still blue, just when the stars are coming out, which is often a favorite time for me to shoot. The light changes so quickly that the next photo, just 30 or 60 seconds later, will have a different feel, so I basically will keep shooting during this time and see what I get.

 

It's too bad in this day and age one has to watermark images to protect them......and thereby have a distraction across the image.

 

I was adamantly opposed to doing this even though many photographers kept telling me to do this. And then, I don't know, maybe 5-6 years ago, I don't remember, I started seeing lots of my photographs all over the internet with no credit given. So now I have the watermark and a little hidden copyright thing embedded. And I'm not stupid. This still won't stop everyone. But it'll discourage some. Sort of like using The Club on your car. Sure, someone can brake it, but it serves as a pretty good deterrent.

 

I shot a great picture of John Mayer from 6' away when he sat in with Jeff Beck at the El Rey. I later Googled John Mayer and lo and behold a guy had snatched two of my pictures for a blog page and refused to write me back when I asked him to at least credit me if he wanted to use them. Who know's how many people grabbed it by now from his website...even though I went directly and turned off sharing in Flickr. Even then people can copy and paste...or just drag them onto the desktop. Sucks.

 

That's what photographers told me as well. They said even if someone gives you credit on their website, others will still take your photo and use it for whatever. I've even had someone take one of my photos, which was credited on their website, and use it for their book!!!! So sadly, that's why I do all the watermarks.

 

Was I so damned tired last night that I thought I posted a reply about reckel and Albert fighting? It is not there anymore.........

 

Those posts have been removed and Einstein's been banned, so you're not too tired.

 

Thanks for all your comments and checking out the photos!!!

[UstadKhanAli]

Ken, could you go into some real detail as to how you get that milky look...the almost cotton wool look in the water....yet still get darker detail in the rock? I see how the sky is blown out and I imagine a short exposure of the exact same shot (tripod) would give one a darker sky to lay in. But what was going on as far as the conditions, the time of day....was it hazy, overcast, bright....morning, magic hour etc etc and what filter did you use to stop down, ISO, shutter, F-stop....etc etc etc?

 

Well, I have all the ISO and shutter speed and f/stop posted on my Eleven Shadows site for all long exposure photos, so you can just look there.

 

As for the milky or misty look of the water, that's easy. That's simply because the lens was open for a long time, so even though the water is dark, because of the movement of the water, the waves, the foam, etc. ends up looking more ethereal. Because the lens is open for a while, it captures all the movements, and the longer it's open, the more movements, the more crests of waves, the more foam, the more movement is captured, all resulting in a whiter sort of look in the water.

 

Around 1-3 seconds, you can still typically get a sense of one movement...it'll blur, of course, and it'll look whiter, but you still get a sense of how the water is moving because there's less movement being blurred.

 

From 5-10 seconds, the water really starts looking more and more white-colored...unless, of course, it's not moving, in which case it'll kinda look more or less the same.

 

The more movement of the water, the more it'll look ethereal, generally speaking. But in a fairly still lake, less so.

 

How photographers keep the lens open for so long is simple.

 

We buy eyeglasses for the camera.

 

That's what we call ND (neutral density) filters. What it basically does is reduce the amount of light entering the lens/camera while keeping the color neutral. Another thing that we do quite often is use a smaller aperture (opening) on the camera, which will obviously reduce the amount of light entering. Between these two things, if we buy a strong enough ND filter, we could have the shutter open for several minutes in daylight without overexposing the image. However, many people don't do that because after, who knows, 10, 20 seconds or so, there's sort of a point of no return in which the moving water in the ocean doesn't really change all that much.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you would share your secrets 'cos I would love to try that.

 

Any time you (or anyone else here) wants to talk photography or photographic techniques, let me know!!! I love talking about this as much as I do talking about music or recording!!!!! I like the discussion that occurs at the intersection of technical stuff and art.

 

We also discuss this stuff sometimes on my Facebook photography page or to a far lesser degree, my blog.

 

The most challenging part to me about coastal photography is the ancillary stuff, like keeping the tripod still when the water is ebbing and flowing and pulling the sand away from where the tripod is jammed in, the ocean spray, salt water destroying the camera (done this once now!), lens fogging up, balancing on rocks, sand spraying or getting on everything...you get the idea.

 

I love how you go find the shots you want. Like a photography safari...LOL!! Unfortunately, with all I have going on I only get to pull out the camera when I am out on vacation or a day trip with the family.....and then it is usually happy snappy family shots with trying to grab an interesting one here and there......and being told to hurry up and keep up. I remember up at Yosemite trying to set the camera up on a rock as I had no tripod and I had this gorgeous waterfall image in front of me. The kids were yelling it was scary (too high up) and the wife did not want me to stay behind...'cos the trail was sketchy and she needed help with the girls...... and I was so rushed. I almost imploded man. Even though I stayed behind a little, I ended up not getting the shot I wanted. I was trying for a long exposure on the waterfalls...inspired by Ken Lee BTW ...... and I ended up scratching the bottom of my camera slightly on the rock I was using to prop it up.

 

I actually totally know the feeling. My girlfriend is really cool about giving me time to compose shots and all, but she's human, after all, and gets bored. So sometimes I wake up really early or stay out really late to get some of my shots. Or she'll go on ahead and check something else out while I lollygag with my camera. But I rarely do long exposure shots while she's around except for the one I took at the Salton Sea, which were relatively short exposures, not like star trails. And I did a star trails shot in Sonoma simply by setting up at the house where we were staying!!

 

And it's because of what you describe that I decided to devote most of this past summer to "photography safaris". One trip for the desert (Bodie, Alabama Hills, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Mono Lake) and another for the coast (Mendocino, Santa Cruz, and then when I got home, photographing El Matador as well).

 

As for the scratches, at least it was on the BOTTOM of the camera. Best place you can scratch a camera if you must. BTW, all my cameras look like hell after just 2-3 years. The finish is messed up, it has bumps and nicks, and it just looks USED. And it's getting more and more that way because of the things I do. I even destroyed a camera taking photos of Bowling Ball Beach in Mendocino because I got salt water spray on it from a wave and fried the switchboard. The local camera store guy fixed it up, fortunately. I thought that camera was a goner.

 

Nothing bad but I haaaaaaaaaate scratches man......I have a real THING about that. It's why I cannot buy myself a brand new car or motorcycle. It's like the ketchup/mustard/food drip on the nice spotlessly clean and stylish shirt...... 10 minutes into arriving at your day trip destination..... and now you have to walk around all day like that.......knowing it is a stain that will never wash out. AAArgh!!!

 

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

[rjt]

Ken, I'd like to say "great minds think alike" but those who know me well would say mine wouldn't qualify. I think the NIK HDR (in particular) can leave you with some fairly realistic results (or let you get pretty wild.) So I've used it on occasion either when seeking that "HDR effect" or when cheating because I felt lazy. Usually, I do more combining two images by hand. Even more than that, the most common thing I do with photos (okay, beyond cropping and setting basic things like hue or saturation) is dodging and burning. I think that makes almost every photo a tad better. Thanks for the brush tools in PSE, PSP and Lightroom.

 

ps Interesting comments about your girlfriend being human. Often when I travel I take tours (amazing how my friends say they love to travel until they have to fork over the $$$) or am with a friend who has almost no interest in photography (how many times have I heard "Can I have some of your shots?") So I have learned to "take the shot." Sometimes I am up late or early, but it is rare for people to give me more than a minute or two to get the pic. I think I've said this before, I'm more of a traveler who photographs than a photographer who travels. It is nice when someone cuts you some slack though.

[Huh?]

Thanks for the great info Ken. Yup I know all about ND filters ..... I actually have in my filter collection, some ND filters by Tiffen and B+W....I don't have all the adaptor rings though......I have to suss that out and get with the program. Yeah I get to work with ND a lot....mostly gels, as I work in the film biz.There are optically correct ND acrylic panels also...I like that stuff but it's expensive.

If I had the spare cash I would try the NIK HDR. I have the latest version of Photomatix and I love it. Not so much the HDR in PS CS5....... I also have HDRTist....kinda a cheapie one and of course the HDR in Topaz.

I like the B&W plug in in Topaz but would love to have the NIK one. That Silver Efex Pro 2 looks stunning. Tough at $200 though.

Off for a mile or greater swim at the gym. Catch you later. Keep the great info and pics coming.

[UstadKhanAli]

Ken, I'd like to say "great minds think alike" but those who know me well would say mine wouldn't qualify.

 

I dunno, of course I don't really know you, but you seem pretty great to me.

 

 

I think the NIK HDR (in particular) can leave you with some fairly realistic results (or let you get pretty wild.) So I've used it on occasion either when seeking that "HDR effect" or when cheating because I felt lazy. Usually, I do more combining two images by hand. Even more than that, the most common thing I do with photos (okay, beyond cropping and setting basic things like hue or saturation) is dodging and burning. I think that makes almost every photo a tad better. Thanks for the brush tools in PSE, PSP and Lightroom.

 

I haven't quite figured out dodging and burning yet, but I'm starting to do the combining of two images by hand more often. Before this summer, I rarely did it, "stacking" star trails aside, and even that's quite new.

 

ps Interesting comments about your girlfriend being human. Often when I travel I take tours (amazing how my friends say they love to travel until they have to fork over the $$$) or am with a friend who has almost no interest in photography (how many times have I heard "Can I have some of your shots?") So I have learned to "take the shot." Sometimes I am up late or early, but it is rare for people to give me more than a minute or two to get the pic. I think I've said this before, I'm more of a traveler who photographs than a photographer who travels. It is nice when someone cuts you some slack though.

 

I can't say I blame them. They're not part of the photography process, so they get bored. It's a weird thing sometimes, photography is, if you devote yourself to it. Stay up really late, wake up really early to get the best shots, and stay in awkward positions for hours at a time. Takes a sick mind.

 

Like you, I've always been more of a traveler who photographs than a photographer who travels. But that kinda changed with a couple of trips this summer when I went specifically to photograph and not much else (aside from visiting friends in Santa Cruz, which was a beautiful thing).