Car

Alain and I set out to photograph his car. There was a lot of trial and error, but I think they turned out half decent.

1/200 sec, f/9.9, ISO 100, tripod, flash SP622 ~1/4 power hand-held
View Original


30 sec, f/9.1, ISO 100, tripod, flash SP622 ~1/8 power hand-held fired many times from camera left to right
View Original


1/10 sec, f/18.2, ISO 100, hand-held
View Original

Old Houses Downtown

1/400 sec, f/9.1, ISO:200, 43mm (35mm eqv. 69mm), hand-held

Barn at Night

More Fall

Fall Trees

Photo Contest

My city is holding an amateur photography contest. I tried shooting the city from a hill at sunrise, but the hill was in the wrong spot. I couldn't really get the sunrise and the city in the same frame. Should have stayed in bed. Then I tried going downtown to shoot some of the landmarks. I think I'll submit the last one, it has two landmarks in one and good representation of the French and English, something that the city is known for.

HDR Tests

I've been playing with some HDR (High Dynamic Range) techniques. Not really sure how I feel about the outcome, I think they look fake, but I think I'd rather look at them then the originals. There's a battle between "trying to represent reality accurately" and "making something that looks nice". Don't get me wrong, reality looks nice when I'm looking at it, but it's not the same through the camera (no matter how sophisticated/expensive).

My other HDR attempts
The link above will show other post with at least one HDR image, not every image is HDR.

Dynamic Range in photography refers to the ratio between the lightest and darkest amounts of light the camera can see at one time in a scene. It's nowhere close the dynamic range of the human eye. A camera has a hard time seeing details in clouds on a bright day and the shadows under a tree at the same time. One way to get around that problem is to take multiple photos at different exposures and then blend them together on a computer afterward. That's what I did here, using GIMP. But the problem with that is all it really does is darken the light areas and brighten the dark ones so the details can be seen. It looks un-natural because there could be areas in the sky that are darker then areas in shadow, that really shouldn't be.

I've also adjusted the colour saturation and contrast too.

Anyway, what do you think? Where do you lean, would you rather photograph/look at an accurate representation of reality or something that looks nice?


I thought a farmer's field was a strange place for this.

At the Lake

Did some camping a week or two ago by a lake, here it is. First at late afternoon then again at about 10:30pm.

Berries, Path, and Lake

Bridges (Part 4)

Here are two more covered bridges. These are still in use.

Bridges (Part 3)

Here are some more photos of the bridge from last time.