Now that Lightroom 4.1 and Photoshop CS6 have a new HDR processing method, and Lightroom can read the raw files from my camera, I thought I would re-process the raw files for these shots using the LR 4.1 32-bit processor. The previous versions were processed with Photomatix from JPG files, which I found to result in final TIFF images with crunchy details and unrealistic colors.




And now the old:



Is the new processing better?


Great Sand Dunes National Park

Here are some shots from the trip. The weather wasn’t ideal, but we had a great time.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Hall Ranch Trail

I went hiking with my film camera just before Thanksgiving. I was testing a new lens and looking to capture details that would tell the story of what Hall Ranch Trail is like.

I was very pleased with how the lens performed, and the slides came out great. I need a better scanner, though.




The full set is in my Snapshots area.

Panasonic Lumix GX-1 compared to my G3

I’m curious about the interest in the “premium” GX1 and how it compares to my G3.

As far as i can tell, the GX-1 is an update to the GF-1 / GF-2 body style, but with the G3 sensor and internals. That’s the 30,000 foot view of it, anyways.

So, what are the technical differences?

The GX-1 improves on the G3 with:


  • electronic level
  • a bit smarter button layout
  • tacky rubbery grip areas for better, um, grip
  • slightly faster autofocus (0.09 sec vs. 0.1 sec for my G3)
  • slightly faster frame rate and larger buffer – 4.2 fps vs. 4.0 fps, 9 frames vs. 7


The G3 boasts these features over the GX-1:


  • integrated EVF
  • articulating screen
  • longer battery life


For fans of the GF series, I suspect the GX-1 trumps them all and should be an obvious upgrade.

For me, I could use the level and the better button layout, and I’d love the better grip. I’m not sure it’s worth swapping for, though. I think I’ll try to add some grippy faux-leather stuff to my G3 and call it good.

You can get a great price on either the GX1 or the G3 at Adorama.

Ansel Adams on Visualization and Creative Photography

I think of Stieglitz’s definition of photography -a paraphrase of what I heard him say many times. In the earlier days, when people were very scornful of what he called “creative photography” or “photography as art,” they would ask: “Mr. Stieglitz, how do you go about making the creative photograph?” He would answer, “When I have a desire to photograph, I go out in the world with my camera. I come across something that excites me emotionally and esthetically. I’m creatively excited. I see the picture in my mind’s eye and I make the exposure and I give you the print as the equivalent of what I saw and felt.” The word “equivalent” is very important. It’s two things-what is seen and what is felt about it. That’s why the naturalistic element in photography is very important. When you intentionally depart from the natural situation you can get into trouble. Unless you depart far enough.

From his Last Interview.