Heron, Great Blue (I think)

I know nothing about bird identification.  Aside from being able to identify a common house fly and a mature robin, I would fail miserably on Jeopardy if I had to identify other critters in the flying category.  OK, I got the Eagle thing right but even a blind flying squirrel blah, blah, blah.
I can make make an educated guess at this one, with the help of Wikipedia and the Refuge site.  The most common Heron in the Refuge is the Great Blue.  I'm also assuming this isn't a Crane or Egret.  (Photos of those later.)
Fortunately, through my photo club we have some birders - and I can get some real help.
So for now I'm going with this is a Great Blue Heron.

ISO 400, f/8, 1/250 sec, 440 mm

The day was very cloudy, flat light.  Last weekend I was playing with higher ISOs and I wanted to keep today's at 400 to see any differences.  I should have swapped the days, but the focus is pretty good here.  Love that VR image stabilization.
One of the other things I was playing with was the Image Size setting, going from DX to 1.3x.  Essentially some of the crop(ed) sensor is reduced even more creating the ability to stretch the MMs a bit more.  I can go from 450mm to 600mm.  But there should be a penalty for that - and I found it.  The image you see is pretty much the image you get.  It is small.  On the D7200, the DX (RAW) image size is 6000 x 4000.  In the 1.3 mode, the (RAW) image size is 4800 x 3200.  So you get more of an effective angle with the FX lens.  The math hurts my head.  In the end, I tried to crop more of the image and it just didn't work.  Anything over 100% started to pixelate.  Well, if I wanted professional photos, I'd have to dole out more $$$$s.  But I'll take this one as it is.

And now for something completely different - Grasshopper

I usually like some form of harsh contrast on my finished images.  And I tried here.  I really did try.  That look just wouldn't click for me.  After trying various tricks, shades, filters and processes I finally thought to just go with it as is.
But in getting out of my comfort zone, I created more work than I thought.
Here is a grasshopper just along for a ride on the front of my truck.  The pace was slow, between 5 and 7 MPH.  I'm guessing he/she/it has done this before, staying put on the surface for about a mile.

ISO 800, f/8, 1/1000 sec, 480 mm

One might think that the post processing on this is easier than trying to find the right effect for contrast manipulation.  Maybe for some, but not for me.  This getting a nice smooth image takes some effort.
The trick is to remove as many surface distractions as possible.  And a lot of them don't show up right away.  I'd finish with what I thought was the final product only to see something else after looking/staring at it for a while.  Seriously, I probably have 5-7 tries at this.
Although the hood of my truck is in pretty good shape, it didn't hold up well against a flat sky.  Most, if not all, post processing programs have some form of 'healing' process that is quick and easy.  Takes a bit of time and magnification, but is well worth it.  But because it is a nice even surface, the healing is pretty easy.
I do like the way this turned out.  This is out of my comfort zone with the subject and the finished image.  Although this doesn't qualify for a nature shot it will be a killer at reflections night.

Wood Ducks on a Log

How much wood would a wood duck duck if a wood duck ....   Well, going to end it there.
This is from last weekend's excursion to Shiawassee Refuge.  Duck, wood ducks.  Unless I read what was native there, I wouldn't know.  But now I do know and there are lots of flavors to a wood duck.
So as I'm driving along, I see this group.  They were well camouflaged, missed them on the first pass.  I got a few shots.
This one got to me.

Probably not good to say, but this reminds me of Dogs playing Poker.  For the Dogs, each has its own personality.  And these duck also have their own.  My favorite is the second from the right, looking right at me.  Nothing to see here Pal, just keep moving.
This is becoming one on my favorite screen savers.
ISO 400, f/8, 1/800 sec, 450mm.
Again, this is with the new lens.  

State Road Barn (Not for much Longer!)

Not far from the house, there is a barn that is roughly two years into really falling apart.  I have been intrigued by the site, but being the procrastinator that I am, I've put off photographing it until now.  (See the previous line about two years.)
This was a great exercise for the day.  I originally wanted to go with Photomatix to do this one, pull out some of the insides.  I quickly found out that PMX did not like the power lines.  And if I really knew what I was doing I would have taken them out right away.  The lines had to go.  In the end, no matter what process, PSCC or On One, I used, followed by whatever HDR effect I added, the evidence of the power lines was always survived.
The answer was always there in front of me, that sky in the original shot needed to go.  Flat as can be.  That sky needed to be replaced.  And that was a good excuse to work with On One.
I find doing this type of work with On One so much easier than with Photoshop.  The masking tools and layer blending in On One are very easy and quick.  Once the blended image was created, I went back to my normal workflow to finish the image.
This is a JPG made from the RAW file that I believe Nikon would have created.

The particulars;
1/2000 sec, ISO 800, f/8, 123 MM

I like photographing barns.  The more unique character, either by design or time, the better.

Fortunately the area in the vicinity of the building is pretty clean.  I have a couple more ideas for this environment.  I've been practicing with higher ISO shots to get the speed I will need in a few weeks.  I'll lower the ISO, lower the speed,  There could be some better angles.  And there could be a much better sky.

Juvenile Bald Eagle

I am in total awe of my friends who are able to get a wildlife shot of something more majestic than a sea gull.  I get the sea gulls.  To be sure, there is no pressure in photographing sea gulls.  They are everywhere.  And if you miss the first trick, the one right behind will do the same thing.

OK, they can be cute, but it's not like, say. an Eagle.

To me, there's pressure in photographing an Eagle.  First, I've never photographed one before.  Pressure.  Next, since it has taken me a number of years to be in position to photograph one, I might not get another chance anytime soon.  Don't screw it up pressure.

Here goes:

Today's adventure took me to Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.  I've been there a few times, hiking the The Ferguson Bayou Trail most of the time.  There is an auto tour that for some reason has always been closed when I've been there before today.  Today, the drive was open.  New territory not along the familiar trail.  Along the drive, between mile 3 and 3.5, I saw a large bird circling off to my right.  I know there are Eagles in the area.  Could this be?  I know Eagles don't get the adult colors until after about fours years of age.  Still, could this be?

The park 'asks' you to stay in your vehicles to minimize the disturbance in the area.  So with this bird on the right, lots of windshield between us.  Eventually, let's call it 10 minutes or so, the bird sat on my left.  Just awesome!  The bird sat there for a few minutes and I would try to catch head movements.  The bird was about 30 feet away from me.  How lucky does one get?

This was taken with the new lens.  I don't know if I get this without it.  The particulars.  ISO 800, f/8, 1/640 sec, 450mm.


I was able to get ten good photographs of the bird in this area.  But I have only one with it looking right at me.


All in all, I had a good outing today.  Fired off around 500 shots.  I'll bet I have maybe 50 keepers.  But this one photograph was worth the whole day.

When is 300mm really 600mm?

One of the requirements I wanted to get with the new lens was a 400mm focal length.  I have a 200 mm lens and with the D7200's trick of changing the image area, I could get to 350 mm.
The math in all this is mind boggling.
First starting with the lens.  Nothing changes in the lens.  70-300 full frame is, well, 70-300.  However, being a full frame lens it is primarily built for a full frame body/sensor.  And simply when it hits a smaller sensor, some of the light is lost around the edges.  What's that you say, some lens will get soft around the edges?  This is a cure.  Expense, but a cure.  Best I can say if you're really interested, google FX lens on DX body.  There's all sorts of people who can 'splain it better than me but in the end for Nikon there is an approximately 1.5x bump for the lens. 
So by Nikon's definition, my 70 - 300 has an equivalent focal length of 105 to 450.  Out of the box.  PFM (Pure Magic).
To get me the rest of the way, the D7200 has a cute little setting called Image Area.  This option disables some of the sensor and in the same manner as above gives the illusion of more zoom in the lens.  There is a cost, such as pixel count as represented by the reduced file size - but hey I'm an amateur and this is a hobby.  The photos are still awesome.
In the end, does anyone really know what the focal length is?  The bigger the number, the bigger the object in the field of view is.  More/bigger is better, right?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no but I'd rather have it and not need it.  Or at least have the option to use it.
So, how does the camera react to this.
This set of shots was taken in Port Huron.  One of the river vessels passed under the Blue Water bridge.  If I had to guess, the vessel was a mile away.
First image with Nikon's DX Image Size.

Focal Length in 35mm is 450.  The Image area is set to DX.  Note the lens is 70-300,

Next shot less than a minute later.  The Image Area was set to 1.3.  Focal Length in 35mm is 600.

The particulars are shown.  1/800 sec, f/8, ISO800, Manual Mode

Both shots are hand held.  Enlarged, both shots are very clear.  (OK, not as fast as aircraft, but when in Rome...)

Is Manual really worth it?

I entered into the DSLR world in 2009 with a Nikon D80 and no idea how to use it.  A few years later I picked up a D90 - and a little idea on how to use it.  In 2016, I picked up a D7200.  I have a bit of an idea on how to use it, although it does depend on who you ask.
Along the way, I've gone from the full AUTO mode through Aperture Priority to full Manual.
Take this for example:

Histogram is not too bad.

One would say that is an interesting photo.  What an interesting perspective to keep the deck rail in focus with the gulls out of focus.
Truth is, I wanted it the other way around.  
Today, I was playing around with the many, many combinations of auto focus.  In this photo, the mode was full auto.  I let the camera decide what the subject was.  
I have to ask myself, if I'm that picky to use Manual Mode for speed, aperture and ISO, why go only half way?  Why wouldn't I also do the focus?
Normally I use only one of the focus points that the camera has.  Pluck it out of the center and press.  I have a pretty good hit rate.  I tried full auto just for fun.  I was experimenting with multiple targets.  I wanted to see what the camera would do.
Like this:

Most of the gulls are in passable focus.  This is an exception.  What I'm seeing after reviewing the shots is the camera appears to be confused by the water waves.  I think because of the number of moving targets, the camera ignored the water.  Against the sky, my hit rate was much better with a single moving target.
One of the tricks I've used in the past is to find a comfortable infinity setting and it with the auto focus off.  Realistically after about 15-20 feet you're in the infinity area anyway.
I believe in Manual Mode for taking the pictures.  I'm going to get there for the focus.

The Barn Test

On the recent road trip to the eastern part of the state the goal was to test the new lens.  Testing was fairly easy, as it only works with the D7200 and not on the D90.  At least according to Nikon.
So the two units for the day are the D7200/70-300 and D90/18-200.
Traveling the back roads, I was looking for barns.  Preferably barns with some wear.
I found this one, and it seemed to be a good one to test both units.

These are RAW images.
I tried to keep most of the particulars the same.  I was using f/6.3 and f/8 most of the day to keep the results as sharp as possible.  I missed by a bit on the aperture.  And the focal length on the 70-300 was actually 85, but due to FX lens on a DX camera it comes out to 127.
I concede that fact may have improved the detail in the barn wood a bit.
Will have to try with other combinations.  
But the real interesting part of this figuring out how to line up two similar images into one image.

AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR

Friggin' awsome!  Whatever command I have of the English language escapes me now for what I think of this lens after one day of use.  I may have to re-think my lens strategy.
From the first image I saw from today with this lens and the D7200, I knew this combo was just great.
I'll get into the photos later, but I have to ask myself why this turned out so much sharper that other efforts.  Not that past photos were bad - but like when you go to the big box store and see a UHD next to a 1080p there is a difference.
There are three possibilities for the perceived image difference.  I'll rank them in order of what I believe the validity is.
Anything related to the full frame construction angle, from the heavier weight to the glass used.  There has to be a reason that the lens is almost double the cost of the DX sibling.  The glass is better?  There is more glass?  Does the extra weight make it more stable in your hands?  Is it the new pulse AF?  Whatever, I'll take it and may look to more FX units int he future.
Next, I didn't skimp on the UV filter.  I may to to determine on my other lens if the quality just needs to be better.
Last, I upgraded the firmware and distortion control data.  Could have done the trick?  I did the same for the D90 and although I thought the photos were good, they didn't stand out as much.
More to follow.

Summer.....

This summer has been awful trying to free up some time to do anything but the paying activity.  I've been off-roading once - and I had to take vacation days to do that.
But the work hump will be over shortly and time to get back into a real life.
On the photography front, I have a trip to Reno coming up in a few weeks to attend the air races with friends.  What fun it will be, except.....
The biggest lens I have is a 200mm.  I have a few aircraft photos taken at FNT when there were WWII aircraft visiting with the 200 and they're OK but...  To get a good, not great, result, I had to crop the results.  It barely works on a 23 inch monitor.  I'm expecting to get better opportunities at Reno.  New toy time.
One challenge is that I will be flying commercial to Reno.  My current camera bag will not do the trick.  Along with my camera equipment, I'd like to take a laptop.  Any new bag will have to accommodate the camera equipment and laptop.  There has to be some form of carry-on that will meet this requirement.
As to an appropriate lens, the story gets longer.
Originally I thought about diving into one of the super telephotos around 600 mm.  I was looking at the Sigma and Nikkor models.  In the end though, that means carrying it around and tripods for stability.  (I know, they say hand held, but who whats to take that chance?)  Budget for those items is somewhere int he area of $1500 to $1700.  Not sure I want to go that far.  At least for now.
On my DX (crop), the Nikon lens selection tops out at 300 mm.  In looking at these, I was focusing on the 70-300 models.  There are 18-300 and 55-300 models, but I want to stay with the 70-300 because the AF would/should be faster.
As it turns out, the 70-300 lens are newer models and are not totally compatible with my 5 year old camera.  Well that sucks.  The lens AV is not controllable on the lens, so it defaults in the ON position and can not be changed.  Could be worse.
If you search enough support articles, you can find this information.
With enough reading on the net, one solution was to get the FX version of this model.  All the controls are available.  According the Nikon, it will work on the D7200, not the D90.  I can live with this.  
This could turn out to work really well for me.  Because it is built for full (FX) sensor, my effective range would be 105 to 450 mm.  The purpose of this lens is max range.  This is GREAT.  But....
There is a note in the compatibility chart.  Note says my camera needs to be at the latest firmware version.  No problem, I'm an IT guy and can use Youtube.  Easy....  What could go wrong?
And upgrading the firmware in both the D90 and D7200 was very easy.  Nice to know Nikon updates their products.
In a few days, I'll be in the Detroit area and can stop at the camera shop.  Already checked, they have the lens in stock.  (They also tell me quantities are limited, think they want me there soon?)
Another outing this year will be returning to the Detroit Model Railroad Club on what is turning out to be a annual event.  This time my plan is to work with a prime lens.  I have a 85 mm lens that has worked real well for me that I will use.  Make this interesting.

A Colormunki Afternoon

In the quest for better photography, some of the issues we deal with is a consistency of color, from the subject to the final medium.
When you think about it, consider the path a specific color of red goes through from the subject to the PC display, RAW/JPG or print.
Ambient light hits the color red on the subject, goes through a filter attached to the camera lens, through the camera lens (OEM or other) to the camera, processed through software to a file.  That's a lot of handshakes - and we're not across the finish line yet.  From the file the journey continues to either electronic display or print.
So - what is the possibility that that one specific color of red that started with the subject finished at the destination with the same color?  The odds probably not good.
In reality, do you really need to capture that specific color or red?  If you are OK with the way you photos turn out from your (phone) camera, and with what the manufacturer algorithm does to a RAW image in the conversion to a JPG, and how your display presents the image - then you don't need this.
If you're already on the road to the dark side, that is take the time to process your own images (RAW), then you'd probably see value in the extra time to get the original colors right.
So how to do that?
A few years ago I purchased a color card.  X-Rite's Passport to be exact.  (This is not a commercial for them, just fact.)  Once I understood the difference between a JPG and a RAW file, it only made sense to me that the only way to get a true color duplication was with a color card.  OK - if not true, then a truer color duplication.  What I found out was that my both my Nikons using OEM lens' were a little light on blue shades.
But is that really true?  Or was the blue shade not represented correctly on my monitor?
In reality, I think I have only one side of the conversation.
Now, dealing with displays only, I have the other piece to help in getting the color representation.  I purchased X-rite's Cololmunki Display.  Again not an advertisement.  In theory it should blend in with the current process I use now.
As with most tech-toys, there are lots of Youtube videos on how to set the product up.  It really wasn't that difficult.  But what was missing - or I missed, was where the profile file was used.
The Colormunki creates an .icm file, much like a printer profile.  And like a printer profile file, the file has to be 'read' by the device.  I've played around with printer profiles before, so I sort of understand the concept.  Just have to translate the knowledge to the display.
Actually, it was easier than I thought it would be.  For Windows, it is in the display settings.  DOH!.

If you have multiple displays configured, a unique profile can be created and used for each.
So - the real question is, did it help?
I can see a difference.  For me, the monitor is somewhat darker and thus the colors are not so washed out.  But the neat thing is that all three monitors, different manufacturers, are now pretty much the same.
I haven't set up my laptop yet, need something to do next weekend.  I'm expecting a big change there.

Will phone cameras ever be as good as a (D)SLR or mirrorless?

I sometimes find myself in conversations about DSLR cameras and phone cameras.  It usually happens right after Apple launches its newer and better phone unit every year.  We can save the topic of why Apple's newer units are always better than the older ones for another day.  So anyway, someone always says to me that their new Apple is better than my (insert camera name here) that I have invested/sunk (insert $$$s) in.  
Puh-lezz.
What they should really be asking me is if I think phone cameras are to the point where people think the images captured are as good those that most people can get with a DSLR.
My answer would be something like this.
Phone cameras these days are frickin' awesome!  My phone camera will even generate a RAW image.  How cool is that?  There are apps that will even manage the phone camera settings.  Image file sizes are fairly comparable between the two.  That has to be the same quality, right?
Well, it depends.
Phone cameras make good photography within the reach of most.  The $$$s required are minimal.  After all, the camera is basically paid for.  A lot of what I would call post processing software can be found for free.  Who could ask for more?
The answer begins, as always, is physics.
First, I am a hobbyist.  Not a professional.  And I didn't get too far in physics in high school.  Now that we've set the expectations, let's get on with what is possible and what is fantasy.
The heart of all image capture is the sensor.  This is the same on a phone camera and on a DSLR.
From a very high level, all sensors are the same.  The sensor captures light and translates the information to digital information.  The digital information is captured in a file and you know the rest from here.  To be sure, that is probably 100 steps condensed to 3.  We'll keep it simple.
For the sake of my answer, I'll go with the image capture at the sensor is the best it can be.
If you look up the definition of photography, every one deals with the capture of light and somehow converting that information to another medium.
The key word here is LIGHT.
For most of my friends who are photography enthusiasts, we have (can afford) equipment with what is called a APS-C class size, 23.6mm x 15.8mm for an area of 3.73cm(sq).  Most of us have dreams of hitting the lottery and going full frame which is 36mm x 23.9mm for an area of 8.6cm(sq).  Ah, the quest of light.
So, what's in a phone camera?  Without getting into the math, the APS-C sensor is roughly 18x-20x larger that what is in my phone.  That's the physics part.  I'm sure there is some law that states the bigger the sensor, the more light it will capture.

I can hear the rumble within the Apple community now, well Mr. know-it-all, how come my phone doesn't stink with that kind of math?
You have to give credit where it is due, all those phone engineers earn their money.  Apparently there are tricks in order to get the most possible light to the sensor.  Technology is a wonderful thing.
So the Apple crowd will also ask, well why don't they just put a bigger sensor in the phone?  Well, you'd have to ask Apple, but one reason is with the rush to get smaller and more powerful the constant enemy is heat.  And a sensor will generate heat.
So in the end the answer to the original question lies in, what do you want to do with the hobby?  If you are happy with your phone camera, then yes you can take just as good a picture with your phone camera as you would with a DSLR.  But my answer to the the question is no, my phone camera will not take pictures with which I would create my art.  And it never will.  And I'm OK with that.
My phone takes great 'family opportunity/travel/vacation' shots.  I'm OK with Samsung's algorithms to produce a good JPG file.  However, if I want to show off or print pictures, or as I like to say digital art, than I want the best capture of light I can get.  Or the biggest sensor I can afford.
This covers just the sensor size.  There are other aspects to this conversation as well.  What about the elements of the sensor, the pixel element?  With smaller sensor sizes comes smaller pixel elements, right?  Is smaller better?
How do you get light to the sensor?  I spend a few $$$$s on glass.  Could it be that the lenses on the camera phone are just as good?
Another discussion, another time.

Old Schoolhouse

I found this old schoolhouse on a back road a few years ago, October of 2015.  Not sure I could find it again.  But it is in Michigan, that much I know for sure.  There was a large drainage ditch next to the road, followed by a small rise of debris in the path to the building.  As a result, I couldn't use the viewfinder.  I had to hold the camera above my head and hope for the best.  I have a lot of (blind) shots.  The framing on most could be said to be interesting.  
This was taken with the D90 through the 18-200 lens set to 40 mm focal length.  1/50 of a second, f/25, ISO 200 Aperture Priority.

I like the autumn colors, the orange of the leaves and the color of the weathered roof.  I get the added benefit of some good wood grain which is a personal favorite.  I will suffer with the tree in the front.
In the original image, there was visual junk everywhere.  Back in 2015 my only tool to remove unsightly distractions was to use a clone stamp in Elements.  I played with this image for a while before giving up.
This is the original image.

There were four distractions I need to work on removing.  On the right wall, there is a white tube that is a wire marker.  Just off center right, there is a small tree growing up through the white/gray window filling.  From the lower left, there is a thick horizontal branch that is probably the main objection.  In the upper left, there are a few stray branches the are just irritating.
In Photoshop, I used the fill function set to content aware.  But to use that function you had to use the lasso tool and circle the objects to remove.  I used the mouse, I used the tablet.  The software did the job, but there was a lot more effort involved than I'm used to.  I like easier. So my next effort was with On One's healing tool.  That was much faster.  Just use a brush to highlight the area to clean up, and presto.  That takes care of the overall image.
For my contrasting, even though it is no longer supported by Google, I'm still a big fan of Google's NIK package.  I use the HDR effect module.  In this case I used one of my favorite presets that really over-sharpens and over contrasts.  But instead of going with the total effect, I cut the opacity to 50%.  That was enough to bring out the clouds and the wood grain.  It doesn't look overly altered/butchered.

Rio Grande Trestle

Good afternoon to work on a photo or two.  Single digit Temps, negative temp wind chills.  Perfect day to work on a photo or two.
One of the shots I have from last year's trip to the Detroit Model Railroad Club is of an older model train on a trestle.
This shot was staged for me, as the train was positioned where I wanted it.

This is focus stacked from five shots.  And, as will be shown from one of the originals, some of the background was 'replaced'.
The details: Manual Mode, 32mm, 1 Sec, f/8 and 200 ISO.

Here is the middle shot:

I used Helicon Focus (Pyramid Method) to merge the five shots.  I was pleased with the outcome.

I used On One to remove the office wall.  

I had a photograph from a trip to New York a number of years ago taken on a hike to a waterfall.  The background matched up pretty well.  The sky had a little color and the trees in the background came close to matching.

I used Google's Nik HDR effects to top it off.

Good project for the day.

St Joe's Light and Waves

Looking again to photos from the March 2010 Michigan west coast lighthouse tour, the first stop was in St. Joseph, Michigan.  The light is one of my favorite subjects.  They are fairly unique.  I've been there on multiple occasions.  What I can say about the area, if it is nice outside the photos will be very boring.  Consequently, the more interesting the photo, the more challenging the weather conditions.  I'll give the weather a 5 on the scale, for being windy.  (And cold...)

Spoiler alert.  This is a combination of two images.  The main shot of the water and buildings is one image and the sky is another.  Both images were taken within minutes of each other and from the same location.  The only difference was zoom.  In both shots, the particulars AUTO, ISO 200, f/13 and 1/320.  In the original image of the water and buildings, the sky was just plain flat.  Could not do a thing with it.  I found another image from the same environment with some definition in the sky.  Time to combine.

In each image, I create multiple exposure levels.  For the water and building, I created 5 images covering two full stops above and two stops below the original exposure.  For the sky I created 3 images to cover two stops above and two stops below the original exposure.  For each image, I put them through Photomatix - giving each image the same settings.  I used On One to mask the sky in the original image and combine the second image below it.

In this case it all worked.  The mask creation was simple - mostly straight lines.

I really like the water and wave colors here.  It is difficult to leave the rust colors of the building alone.  Any additional saturation borders on obscene.  I struggle with the red roof.  In reality it isn't so bright.  I tried to leave it alone and let the water carry the image.  Just didn't work for me.  So there is just a little pop there.

Grand Haven Light

Way back in March of 2010 I visited the west side of Michigan, theoretically on a lighthouse tour.  Not kidding myself, it was not a warm journey.  The temperature was very, very brisk.  The good news, I did have to 'remove' many tourists from any images.
Given the file number of the image, I was just starting with the D90.  Which also means, every shot I was taking at the time, I was learning something.  And this shot is no different.
The shot is late afternoon/early evening.  
I was walking on the concrete pier toward the light (west!).  I have many shots from this time, but since I was shooting into the sun in this one, the camera was really confused.  Back in those days, I was shooting in AUTO mode.  I'm fairly certain, even in MANUAL I couldn't have done much better.  In these situations, a three shot minimum HDR would have done the best.  Again, lesson learned.  But another lesson, when in doubt, shoot dark.  Shooting dark allows more colors to be reclaimed.
The setting sun is in direct line with the light.  Under normal circumstances, this spells disaster.  Without the help of software, this doesn't work.  I used my main three packages to get this done.
First, the particulars.  This was taken with a Tamron 18-270 lens.  I wound up trading that in shortly after the purchase for a Nikon lens.  Another story, another time.  ISO 200, f/9 and 1/500.
The original Nikon JPG looked something like this.

Dark, eh?

That was one confused camera.

Staying in the 2010 age, my primary editing packages would have been Adobe Elements and Photomatix.  And I like the grunge look.  Really grunge.

Using these two packages and my taste at the time, I came up with this.

I created multiple images, each with a different exposure using the RAW Editor.  I probably did three images.  I used Photomatix to blend the three images to one image and played with the setting until I came up with this.  This is still one of my favorite 'artistic' shots.

Fast forward to 2017.  Software updates.  Process improvements.  Taste changes.

My goal for this was to get the light color (red) to come out, keep some definition of the sky/clouds and water.  Everything else should fall into place.  And I'd like to take some of the saturation/grunge out if it.

The creation process was along the same lines as in 2010.  I created five different exposures in the RAW editor.  I combined the images in Photomatix.  Using one of the presets, I came really close to what I wanted.  I like the darker version, as opposed to dark version, but I still couldn't get the red of the light right.  I tried a new trick.  Using On One, I combined the post Photomatix image with one of the lighter images created in RAW.  I masked out the light on the darker image, allowing the lighter light to show.  I changes some of the tone settings to get a slightly warmer feel.

I like this version.  There's more time invested in this edition than in previous versions, but that's OK.  It's all a learning experience.

DMRRC - The North Western

I like HDR shots/effects.  I've run from light effects to full onslaught grunge.  And I'm not going to apologize for any part of the journey.

That being said, I found an image that I couldn't make HDR work for me.  I tried all the tricks.  Nothing worked.

So I went plain.  And I liked the result.  

I usually like 'slightly' over sharpened effects.  In this shot, I thought it took away.  Not that this is smooth by any stretch.  The ISO is 6400.  I'd use up to that setting again.

This image breaks a few 'rules'.  I like the lines of the North Western train.  In this frame, it is close to the center.  I was limited by the angle of the view in the setting so in the center it will stay.  If I wanted to go further with the shot, I'd work on removing the three bright 'dots'.  Or maybe just the bigger of the three.  

The one adjustment I did make was to darken the gravel in the foreground.  In the original image, it is quite light.  There might have been an odd light source.  Anyway, that had to go.  I think the image is full, so can't find a different crop that suits me.

Barn in Fall - What a difference eight years makes......

One of my favorite subjects to photograph is old or wood barns.  First, it seems that no two buildings are the same.  Next, you have the wood patterns and what digital processing can do.   Another aspect I like are the surroundings, whether it is nature or multiple legged.

One of my first subjects is a barn in Pennsylvania.  And by first, we're talking eight years ago.  We're talking D80.  I must have deleted the RAW files somewhere along the line, but I do have .HDR files that were created by Photomatix.  And at that point in time, the single image process wasn't that good, so I'm guessing there were three merged (RAW) images.  At that time, I was also using Elements.  Not Photoshop.

I thought it might be interesting to see how processing, software and my tastes have changed over the years.  These are two shots taken on the same day, minutes apart.

The first shot is one I last worked in 2009.  It is one of my favorites.  When I was part of the Art at the Market group, it was a seller.  Again, at that time I was using Elements and Photomatix only.  I also thought grunge was really cool.  Here are a few flavors:

Trying to recall, but I must have been real happy to figure out how to watermark the image and get the copyright right.  Pretty plain.  This is the image I sold at the Market.  This image came out best when printing to paper.  I remember the color of the barn doors is what caught my eye.

On the next/following image I remember trying to boost the colors with Photomatix.  I used this image for years as part of my personal screensaver slideshow.  As I look at it now, it is a bit over-saturated.  Or just colorful.

In the next image, I used the grunge setting in Photomatix.  At one time, I thought this was just plain cool.  And all I can say now is, sometimes you just have to step over the line to define where it is.  (Don't judge me.)

Now let's fast forward to today.  The images is from a RAW D80 file using current On One and Photoshop software.  And my personal take.

Initially I see more sharpening used.  Not as much fall colors in the trees.  I tried to pop the tree colors, but it didn't look right to me.  Made the image look too 'Photoshopped'.  So this shot for me is a lot cleaner, still has some colors and not overly painted.

Fun to see the differences.

DMRRC - Burlington Northern

Earlier this year I purchased a 85mm (AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR) Nikon lens.  The main goal was to get sharper images than I was getting with my 18-200.

My first excursion with the lens outside of Grandpa's Dungeon was to the Detroit Model Railroad Club.  I had grand visions of what the day would bring.

I didn't do much to this image with respect to sharpness and bokeh.  If I remember right, this was taken on a tripod with a remote release.  To help maintain the sharpness, I didn't do any smoothing.  In my past train photos, I've photo stacked to get the image entirely in focus.  So this is different.

The vitals:  85mm, 1/15th, f/5.0, ISO 800.  Put that in the DOF blender with my distance of 3 ft and that gives a DOF of about one inch.  That is probably pretty close to correct.

When going through some shots to work on, I chose this one because of the sharpness of the front of the train.  I also chose to process the shot entirely with On One.  The exposure didn't need much work as the light is pretty even all around.  i was going through all the filters in On One when I stumbled on this color shade.  For what ever reason, this combination with the existing colors works for me.

In the past, I might have warmed or cooled an image a few points but that is as much as I've ever used for a total color shift.  This is new to me and I'll have to remember it.

On many fronts, this is a different photo from me.  Maybe I need to explore more?

Summer 2017 is over.........

Well, the summer photo vacation is over.

I didn't take a lot of new shots this year.  I'll have to make up for it with software amazement.

I've updated my software packages.  Photomatix, who I last gave money to over three years ago, still gives me no charge updates.  Beside the fact it is world class software, that alone makes Photomatix a valid software consideration if you are looking to get into HDR.  I updated my On One software package.  Looks like they've made some very nice enhancements.  The Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2018 versions just came out.  We'll see how lost I can get with that stuff.

Adobe also has Photoshop and Lightroom Apps for your mobile device.  I should add they are FREE apps.  I've played with them for a bit - and they are a lot lighter than the desktop versions, but for free they are still very powerful.  I just completed a technology upgrade (tablet and phone) where I can try these apps out.

The improvements in the On One Photo Raw 2018 software look very interesting.  I've used the software primarily for the the masking functions as I've found them to be much better/easier than Photoshop.  Related to this, I now understand their luminosity mask and how powerful that can be.  I need to get more comfortable with On One.

I will also work more with my phone camera.  For now it won't take the place of my DSLRs, but it would be nice to get 'better' results.  Now that I know about the Adobe Apps, I need to work on transferring photos between my phone and tablet, without wi-fi.  I'm not kidding myself, working on the phone screen is not going to happen with me.  The kids in the training videos are awesome, but they don't have my peepers.  I can live with working on the tablet.

I'd also like to get more comfortable with my device tablet (instead of mouse).  I've played with it off and on, but now that my mobile tablet has a pen I should get more comfortable with this device as well.

That's the plan for this winter.  Between now and June 2018 the paying job will get very busy.  I will have some opportunities for photos so I'll just have to make the most of them.