<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Struck It Rich!	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/</link>
	<description>The blog of bird photographer Arthur Morris</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 2015 14:15:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tim Lumley		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719404</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Lumley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2015 14:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=27211#comment-1719404</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719159&quot;&gt;byron prinzmetal&lt;/a&gt;.

Since no one has commented I’ll give this a shot.  The biggest difference for me is that the Canon&#039;s in-camera HDRs output a jpeg file, even if your camera is set to RAW.  If you are good enough to get everything right for a three image blend in camera that may be fine.  I have learned that I am not that good.  If you send three RAW images to Lightroom you get a RAW composite, although it is an Adobe .dng format, and not a .cr2.  The other major difference is that the camera HDR has a few auto enhancing presets, such as “Art Vivid” which was used on the car image.  As far as I know Lightroom puts out more of a straight pass-through for DIY enhancing.  I would guess that there are, or soon will be, some auto-enhancing plugins for Lightroom HDRs.  There are also a lot of standalone HDR programs with all sorts of auto-enhancing filters.  The ones that I have seen output tif files.

Tim]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719159">byron prinzmetal</a>.</p>
<p>Since no one has commented I’ll give this a shot.  The biggest difference for me is that the Canon&#8217;s in-camera HDRs output a jpeg file, even if your camera is set to RAW.  If you are good enough to get everything right for a three image blend in camera that may be fine.  I have learned that I am not that good.  If you send three RAW images to Lightroom you get a RAW composite, although it is an Adobe .dng format, and not a .cr2.  The other major difference is that the camera HDR has a few auto enhancing presets, such as “Art Vivid” which was used on the car image.  As far as I know Lightroom puts out more of a straight pass-through for DIY enhancing.  I would guess that there are, or soon will be, some auto-enhancing plugins for Lightroom HDRs.  There are also a lot of standalone HDR programs with all sorts of auto-enhancing filters.  The ones that I have seen output tif files.</p>
<p>Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David Peake		</title>
		<link>https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719207</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Peake]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2015 23:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/?p=27211#comment-1719207</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719201&quot;&gt;Doug West&lt;/a&gt;.

Hi Doug, 
It says the car is 5 hp  in the notes so maybe it&#039;s motorised.  Imagine that.
15 mph and no air bags.
The repeating rectangles are good .  Probably the shadows were very deep needing that three stops over from base exposure.
I think Artie  didn&#039;t mean hand holding and tripod mounted for the same image.  Typo alert!
Kind regards
David Peake.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.birdsasart-blog.com/baa/2015/05/29/struck-it-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-1719201">Doug West</a>.</p>
<p>Hi Doug,<br />
It says the car is 5 hp  in the notes so maybe it&#8217;s motorised.  Imagine that.<br />
15 mph and no air bags.<br />
The repeating rectangles are good .  Probably the shadows were very deep needing that three stops over from base exposure.<br />
I think Artie  didn&#8217;t mean hand holding and tripod mounted for the same image.  Typo alert!<br />
Kind regards<br />
David Peake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
