Reading a few articles last night, people seem confused over the definition of ‘High Dynamic Range’ photography. Basically, Photoshop and other programs have tools that allow you to combine several different exposures into one composite picture, with more contrast in areas that were previously under or over exposed, for a very cool brightening effect. So the argument is whether you can use a single exposure to create an ‘HDR’ image, and some people feel strongly that by definition this is not HDR. The counter argument usually mentions that most Camera RAW formats store a larger dynamic range than what can be displayed on a typical monitor or LCD; however people don’t seem to understand the significance of this fact.

My argument comes after a sunset bracketing session this weekend in Stockholm. These days, after setting the shutter speed and aperture, the CCD output on a digital SLR is interpreted by software in the camera. Since we control shutter speed, aperture, and ISO on the camera, when you think about it ISO is just software interpretation that the camera uses to raise or lower values the CCD captured. So for bracketing you can change any of these three, but often you want a certain aperture or shutter speed for the circumstances. Since these two values only change the optics the CCD is exposed to, the rest is all software, which I would always prefer to leave for post processing (including white balance, color temp etc) as much as possible, as this is the major advantage in saving RAW data.

Beyond the optics of a given image, it seems everything is controlled by software; the digital CCD has an optimal operation range that the camera understands, and in general you will get the best dynamic range from your CCD using camera presets. You can always get a little more range by using the composite of several pictures, but do they have to originate from physically different images? I say this is irrelevant; a lot of the data is already controlled by software; if you want to combine two optically different images that makes sense, but otherwise it doesn’t matter how your dynamic range is achieved, if the result enhances your shot the way you want. That’s the advantage in shooting RAW; you can do a lot with a single image. Anyone who argues otherwise is lacking experience, and of course the proof is in the pudding. Thanks to Mike Kennedy and John Slemp for helping me understand all of these factors, and showing me so many great examples. I guess I’d better go update my gallery now, just as soon as I finish processing this single sunset shot over Stockholm.

On the last day of my trip to Montana, we spent the morning around the house on the Gallatin river. As I sat upstairs processing pictures of Sam the Golden Retriever, an Eagle landed outside the window just out of the camera’s reach through the branches. Sam had given me the perfect practice for this opportunity that morning, posing as a live and naturally active creature. So I ran downstairs, laced my boots, and ran out the back door with the camera in my hands. Not knowing his threshold for safety, I took a few shots as I moved towards him. As I took one slow step closer to 50 feet, he decided that was enough.

I took about 50 shots in under two minutes, as he flew north up the river, turned around, and made another pass to the south. Maybe three pictures were worth keeping, but I learned a lot in the process. Birds and planes are a lot alike to the camera; very often you only get one chance.

Looking back at the pictures now and thinking of these similarities leads me to ask why the bird and airplane are so different. We have been flying for about a hundred years now, and as the airplane has evolved I wonder how often people think back to nature. I used to have a  dream of creating a recreational two-seat toy for the water, but this has been done. (IconAircraft.com) Now I want to fly like an Eagle, and I think we have the technology to make it happen.

Greatness surrounds us always, but so frequently we forget just to open our eyes. In our daily struggles, we find ourselves so ingrained in the details of life, that often we miss huge opportunities that we never even knew we had.

This morning, I tried to help a friend open his eyes to the possibilities around him. I could see clearly how you can lead the horse to water, but there was a good chance he wasn’t going to drink. Just this afternoon, I look up at my own life, and realize friends have done the same for me, but I hesitated in my actions.

Time to act. Work first, but Commercial rating, acro lessons with Elgin, what else? -Joe

Funny how things work; anytime I’ve ever quoted a piece of development work, it always seems to make sense to double what you really think it should take. After 10 years experience in the field, this rule has never failed; you may get the work done sooner, but you always seem to use the time allocated in productive and meaningful ways. Is there a name for this rule? It would be nice to name it after myself, but certainly I’m by far not the first to figure this out.

Seems interesting to me how life follows patterns. Mine seem to be constantly changing patterns though; it’s amazing to watch how I’ve grown and learned. It’s even more amazing to watch how people around me change, and are affected by my decisions. The end result is that I feel very grateful for the people around me, and for everything that I have, my health; friends, family, not to mention my toys. Of course, the toys are the only thing of importance to me that can be easily replaced. -Joe

As if twitter, facebook, and myspace weren’t enough… there’s WordPress. I love WP, but unfortunately I don’t have a lot to say right now. Will anyone actually read this anyway? -Joe