View Full Version : Montana, part 5
Nikolai Sklobovsky
October 10th, 2007, 01:23 AM
Most of these pictures (except #1) are, despite of their shape, rather large 5-7 frame pano shots, blended in CS3.
1: Capturing sunrise:
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391703-L.jpg
2: Swiftcurrent Lake and a Full Moon (larger web version (http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391919-O.jpg)):
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391738-L.jpg
3: Sun is coming:
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391777-L.jpg
4: Sunrise, moonset:
http://nik.smugmug.com/photos/206391819-L.jpg
The rest is here: Sunrise at Many Glacier (http://nik.smugmug.com/gallery/3623541)
Steve Robinson
December 18th, 2007, 11:25 AM
These are fabulous images. I especially like the first with the other camera. Very inventive.
Nikolai Sklobovsky
December 25th, 2007, 11:23 PM
These are fabulous images. I especially like the first with the other camera. Very inventive.
Thank you, Steve, appreciate it!
Asher Kelman
December 26th, 2007, 01:43 PM
Nikolai,
Impressive. Are these HDR? Waht camera and lenses?
Did you add the moon in the second picture?
Asher
Ron Morse
December 26th, 2007, 02:46 PM
They are very nice. I remember when Nikolai posted them right after he got his 40Ds.
As I remember it they were with his then new 40Ds and 17-55 IS lense.
Am I right Nikolai?
Nikolai Sklobovsky
December 26th, 2007, 02:49 PM
Nikolai,
Impressive. Are these HDR? Waht camera and lenses?
Did you add the moon in the second picture?
Asher
Thanks Asher!
No, these are not HDR, at least in a sense they are not 32-bit floating point based images. Thus far despite all my trials I failed to find HDR compelling enough to justify the troubles. I find it I get better/faster satisfaction my multiprocessing RAW file or by taking several exposures and blending manually.
Camera: Canon 40D. I think most if not all of these are EF-S 10-22.
Moon: it was there, but I enhanced it a bit...;-)
Ron Morse
December 26th, 2007, 05:13 PM
Well wasn't I brilliant?
Nikolai Sklobovsky
December 26th, 2007, 11:04 PM
Well wasn't I brilliant?
LOL
You were!
I had a hard time remembering what lens it was and my gut reaction was to say it was 17-55.
However, I checked the exif and found out it was a bit wider than that (hence it was 10-22), but you were very close anyway :-)