Are You Serious Jo

Hmmm, I have no idea about the Canon software. Does anyone know if Elements can clone? You could use that if it does. Do you want CS5? It does take a bit to learn but well worth it.

Content aware is the shiz!

What software are you using? If you had something that can clone that's what I'd use. I've got CS5, but I'm guessing lightroom can clone? Watch your processing, if you've got things mostly right in camera you should only need basic tweaks in PP. Are you shooting in RAW? You've done some really nice whippet photos so it's just a matter of learning how to deal with more difficult subjects and knowing when you have to override the camera's decisions. If that was unedited then for this shot your camera did a good job of handling the black. Did you spot meter or evaluative?

Much better. Only thing left is to get rid of the big white blobs in the background.

I checked my cloud shots and they aren't going to show you what I mean, but look at the link below on how to shoot white birds. You basically do the opposite for black subjects. Don't forget to check your histograms when shooting. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/bp/white_birds

I know it sounds counter intuitive but remember your meter wants things to be 18% grey. I'll put up some cloud pictures a bit later showing the same shot with no exposure compensation and showing + 1 and +2, you'll see what I mean. The best thing to do is pick some black and some white subjects and do some bracketed shots so you can compare them side by side. It's like driving though, once you get used to it you'll go to shoot a black or white subject and you'll automatically go up or down in exposure compensation.

I did think they made the best choice for winner this week, but would have liked to have seen a bit more context with the shot. The waterfall shot was just a safe choice, he should have taken a risk on a more representative photo. The macro was nice but not really fitting the brief. I'm not sure about them all being capable of being professionals, that was a bit of a presumptuous comment.

Ok, I'll give some tips on what I see. Black animals are hard to get right, did you spot meter off the bird and under expose? Do you know about the rule of under exposing for black and over exposing for white? No. 1 - back ground seems a bit busy for me with this shot. You are dealing with a shot where it has to be spot on to make up for not seeing the bird's eye. I know you can do arty shots that show body parts etc but the shot has to be great to pull it off. I'd clone out the distracting tree bits ion the bottom and darken up the large trunk on the top. No.2 background way too bright, looks like you over exposed to get detail on the bird. Do you shoot RAW? If you can do so, then you can under expose the subject, fixing back ground problems and then bring back detail in the bird if you lose a bit too much. No. 3 is the best, but you need to dial down exposure on the bird, he's blown out in parts on edges and clone out the white distracting bits in the background.

Can't speak for dogs, but it is also a muscle relaxant in humans and given to help with sleep, so it may make him more sleepy. I take mine before bed so you might have to give it to him, at night. Unless he's a PITA, in which case dose him up in the morning :laugh:

Not bad, but I have a closer connection, a friend of mine is a camera man and works with him at times and lived across the road from Vince, but I keep my fangirl urges under wraps with him :laugh:

I'm so jelly, I love Vince and want to practise making babies with him :laugh: It wasn't bad and I am happy to hear a bit of advice on portraits as it's not something I've done and am launching into it. Once they get over the stress of the shoot they'll probably look back and think they should have made more of having a medium format in their hands!

No refocusing and no re metering, all has to be manual. I was lying down below the dog but it was very hilly, I was handholding in low light so had to get low to brace. I think you do have to be pretty rigid in composition to get a decent effect with the DOF. I'm thinking that being parallel to the subject will give the best consistency in terms of predicting what your lens will do with DOF. I would have liked to have gotten to a car show that was on around here as cars present well but went to the Highland cattle show instead and they moved way too much :laugh:

I've started the preparation for a proper series, tried out my model today and he was a trooper so next step is work out location and then get the lighting right.

Well the above pic was little effort but something I would be proud of will take more than the 10 minutes doing that one :laugh:

There is a bit of effort required to set up the shot, which is one of the things that appeals to me. A lot of elements need to come together as well as getting the pp right. But that's the fun of it you have to try new things and it's helping me get my creativity back. If anyone else wants to try this method out please post your pics

I like the second one, the first has a bit too much going on, but colours are nice. I'd tightly crop the first to get rid of the stuff on the left to highlight the water drop.

Bokehrama isn't just about how each point of light is handled, it's about depth of field and it's application in a shot that would traditionally be a wide angle shot with a large DOF. I've already said that the photo I posted wasn't about the composition etc and it was just practice if the technique, I already know the flaws in that shot. That is why I asked if it had the feel of the method, regardless of the composition or subject matter. I was quickly testing how my lens handled the background in a stitch of ten photos. This method isn't about the wiki definition of bokeh you found and just the quality of those small balls of light. The photo below is a Brenizer method shot from a very well known photog and you'll see there are no "points of light" yet it is held up as excellent example of bokehrama. I know it's not something that appeals to everyone and life would be boring it if was but you need to understand the process and expected results before saying it isn't bokehrama because there are no lights.

It will be for competition so won't go up unless it's good enough.

Yep, you really need to not have hills and have objects around the scene that recede into the distance. I only did the above to see what the bokeh quality was like rather than end up with a shot worth keeping, the hills aren't suitable at all for this technique. I'm going to set up a bunch of markers at 1m intervals and see what my lenses give me. Once I work out my best lens I've got some shots planned that will be awesome if they work out. Involves props and a human child (which I never shoot :laugh: ) so should be a real challenge. But I love the effect enough to practise and get it right. Next up will be tilt shift

It is proper bokeh, I haven't altered it at all. Bokeh is by definition out of focus, so anything out of focus is bokeh :laugh: It's applied in a different way for sure and not to everyone's taste, but when done well it is spectacular (to my eyes). Have you seen any other photos using this method? If you do some googling you'll see that it is a valid technique and not just poor photography and not being able to focus :laugh: I did lighten up the dog because light was low and I'm not doing anything else with this picture, it's just practise. But I'm not upset you don't like it, just not sure you understand what it is.

The little sign on the left really annoys me too, I had it in the viewfinder but cut off due to lack of full frame. Next rainy day I'll head back to see if I can repeat it. I didn't have haloing jump out at me but thought it might be just not visible on this monitor. It was a patchy sky so I know some of what may look like haloing is just that, but I'll look at it closely to check.

This was basically just a test of the lens, had to make do with what I had today, but I agree, the hills can make you a bit sea sick :laugh: I have a few planned shoots which will be very well planned but still not sure the lens can cut it in terms of bokeh. What I really need is a new $10,000 superfast tele ETA forgot to mention this is 10 images stitched together, you take a lot of shots with most OOF so you get a wide angle shot with the focus of a tele, it's called bokehrama.

Super critical makes things improve :D The sky was a bit of a hard one because it did have different amounts of grey cloud behind the trees and I was a bit reluctant to mess with that. But I'll go in on closer view and see if I can sort any haloing with some burning. You get so focused on some things you forget to check others :laugh: I also have to remember that I don't have full frame and need to zoom out more as I lost the features on the left. I do have some close ups of the right side shop, might play around with those on the weekend and post them.

I finally found the name of this technique, I'm currently a tad obsessed with bokeh so want to get the hang of this style. Google Brenizer method to see some examples. This is my first attempt, I'd like much better bokeh and will work on that. Does this image capture the feel?

You can comment on composition etc and to be honest it's the first HDR I've done so I'm a beginner at it as well.