[Bob in St. Louis]

Indeed, my video poker face is quite good.  How did you know?

LOL.....If your rock solid enough to hold a camera steady for a full minute, then sitting at a poker table with a handfull of crappy cards should be a breeze. 

Bob

[nathanm]

There's lots of weird things you can do with night shots.  This is my original Lightroom edit of the moon over the lake.  This was 30 seconds @ f/4.  Sorry, that branch was evidently not as stable as ooheadsoo's arms!


If I make it look like what my eyes saw at the time it would be more like this:


But then you can crank up the exposure, warm it up a bit and suddenly you don't know if you're looking at the moon or the sun!



But still, as in the other photo there is a surreal quality to the light; something is not quite right.  It's a weird look.

[note: these look a bit shitty cause I was adjusting my screen-res JPEGs, not the RAW, but it's just to illustrate a point anyway]

[SET Man]

There's lots of weird things you can do with night shots. 
....

Hey!

   You should have try hand holding it.

   Yup, especially with digital. But even with film like negative you could do a lot also if you are very good in darkroom.

    Anyway, I think it is time for me to reveal something to you guys about my "Back Window..." photo. Stay tuned.....

Take care,
Buddy

[SET Man]

Hey!

  OK, I think it is time for me to reveal a secret behind this photo.... 

  Here is the photo again...



  OK, guys what you are looking at is really a result of combining 5 photos together to get a higher dynamic range. I'm not sure if anyone here notice this or expected this. Of course I played around a bit to get the look that I wanted.... that "surreal" feel to it.

 Here is the "base" photo of the 5 photos that made up the final photo version.



  Above had been only color corrected somewhat but otherwise straight from my Sony A700. Not bad by itself. Some might prefer this over the final one.

  And here's something for ooheadsoo. Regarding the noise. The exposure "base" photo above was 30 sec. f4.5 @ ISO 400... on tripod of course. The Sony A700 is not bad at all with noise. Yes, truth to be told there are a few DSLRs out there that have somewhat lower noise usually at higher ISO of 1600+

  Below show 100% cropped photo of the two above.



 On the left of which is pretty much straight from the camera and on the right from final photo with combination of 5 photos. Use the slide to view full right side.
 
  So, there you go... the secret revealed.

Take care,
Buddy

[mjosef]

Mhnnn..very interesting Buddy...so the color tone shifted towards the green scale in the final pic.

[JohnR]

Ah... so that's HDR?

[SET Man]

Ah... so that's HDR?

Hey!

   Yes

Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

Yeah, HDR actually used properly, and not the obnoxious, halo-ridden, special effect crap you usually see out there.

[SET Man]

Yeah, HDR actually used properly, and not the obnoxious, halo-ridden, special effect crap you usually see out there.

Hey!

  Exactly! I tried to make it to look natural but with a bit of that surrealism in it.

  Yes, I've seen some HDR that look cartoonish and way over before.

  So, did anyone here thought that my photo was HDRed at first?

Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

I thought "MAN there's a lot of light pollution in New York!" heh! 

If nobody DID think it was HDR, or this or that technical thingy then that's probably a good thing.  It at least wasn't distracting.  Usually HDR is used in such an artifical manner. If a photo doesn't have the kooky halos then it wil be such an unlikely brightness difference that you don't buy it.

Examples:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=HDR

There are cool photos no doubt, but hardly any of them look natural.  It's used as an effect, not as an effort to restore blown out highlights or to squeeze a naturally high contrast scene into range.  I dunno, the first time I saw some car shots in HDR I was really wowed, but it just turned into the Drop Shadow and Beveled Text of the 00's.  Even some of those awesome shots of the volcano in Chile exhibit some nasty HDR fidgeting. 

[SET Man]

I thought "MAN there's a lot of light pollution in New York!" heh! 

If nobody DID think it was HDR, or this or that technical thingy then that's probably a good thing.  It at least wasn't distracting.  Usually HDR is used in such an artifical manner. If a photo doesn't have the kooky halos then it wil be such an unlikely brightness difference that you don't buy it.

Examples:
http://flickr.com/search/?q=HDR

There are cool photos no doubt, but hardly any of them look natural.  It's used as an effect, not as an effort to restore blown out highlights or to squeeze a naturally high contrast scene into range.  I dunno, the first time I saw some car shots in HDR I was really wowed, but it just turned into the Drop Shadow and Beveled Text of the 00's.  Even some of those awesome shots of the volcano in Chile exhibit some nasty HDR fidgeting. 

Hey!

    Good! I think I passed this little experiment here. That why I didn't say anything for a while. I was waiting to see if anyone notice this.

   Actually, Nathan you are one of the few people here that I'm afraid that would sense this and say.... Wait is that HDR?

   Personally when it come to photography I see myself as very traditional and like my photo to look natural most of the time. HDR works great with stationary subject that I could use tripod. Well, it works well for this picture to preserve the hight light and etc.

   Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments Will there be more HDRed picture for me? Well, depending on the subject.... let's see.

Take care,
Buddy

   

[bz79]

I was thinking HDR but yet it doesn't quite look like HDR... 

Sweet photo regardless. 

[SET Man]

I was thinking HDR but yet it doesn't quite look like HDR... 

Sweet photo regardless. 

Hey!

    Thanks, it was a nice and fun exercise to see anyone notice this right off the bat that is HDR.

Take care,
Buddy

[ooheadsoo]

I like your taste - I have trouble steering myself away from high contrast in post