I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

On Dec 8, 7:33 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

A little better, first one was, expected. With such a unique
structure, you would need to get a little more imaginative in my
opinion. I am starting to see that although I have a great digital, I
probably should hold on to my 35MM till I can afford a digital slr...

wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:33 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

A little better, first one was, expected. With such a unique
structure, you would need to get a little more imaginative in my
opinion. I am starting to see that although I have a great digital, I
probably should hold on to my 35MM till I can afford a digital slr...


Be sure you really have a need for a digital slr before you pop for one.

I have three cameras, a good nikon digital SLR, a very nice canon
digital powershot, and a leica. I use the canon and leica far more than
the nikon. The optics on all three are very good, with the leica's being
the best by far.

wrote:
On Dec 8, 7:33 am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

A little better, first one was, expected. With such a unique
structure, you would need to get a little more imaginative in my
opinion. I am starting to see that although I have a great digital, I
probably should hold on to my 35MM till I can afford a digital slr...

Just,
This is actually about 30 building, since they are so far away, it does
look like one building. I noticed Harry was recommending you look at a
point and shot, which is much less expensive and much smaller than a
DSLR. As he said, he uses it more than his large DSLR, if think most
people like them because they are much easier to carry and keep with
you. While they don't allow as many options and creativity as a DSLR,
if you don't have a camera with you, you won't be able to take the
photo. I took a class offered by Nikionians, and the teacher
recommended everyone get a compact P&S to carry in their pocket. I am
looking around for a nice one now, but I do want a wide angle P&S, and
hopefully one that will shot in RAW, which limits my options considerably.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:33:22 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

I like this one much better.
--
John H

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
news
I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but hopefully
I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3


Looks like it is missing the spaceships and personal flying vehicles.

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:33:22 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

I do think this is a vast improvement over my first attempt, but
hopefully I will continue to improve.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/204...2789669ZLCFTc3

Better, but it's still severely pixalated.

Just as an experiment when you have some time, take some
sunrise/sunset shots bracketing exposures. First try bracketing white
balance, then apature, then shutter speeds. I think your camera
allows for that, but if it doesn't, do shutter speeds by 1/3
increments and apature by one f stop. Use your meter on the widest
light setting possible for the center image in the bracketing series.

For this, you need to use a tripod to achieve the same exposure for
the different values.

I feel that part of the problem is that you are shooting a group of
buildings at a distance under low light. Plus, you are shooting into
the light which requires a whole different technique. I would
seriously consider using a neutral density filter - say .5 or so - to
get the best possible light in this situation. You might also want to
consider doing this one in black and white using a medium strength
yellow or red filter. A polarizing filter isn't going to help you
much in this situation.

Process as we discussed in the other thread.

I know what you are trying to do and the idea is a good one - the
image would be amazing if you could pull it off.