Our Rendition of the Venetian Ceiling...

PhotoLasVegas

Inspired by another poster here, we decided to take a trip down to the strip today and try our luck at the ceiling in Venetian.

This is an HDR version, using 12 exposures...
Canon 7d
Canon 28mm F1.8
ISO200
F13
Exposures ranged from 6 seconds to .5 second.

HDR'ed in PhotoShop CS5, minor tweaking of the default settings.

As a side-note, this image was not cropped or straighened in any way at all. The images were all opened in CS5, and run thru the HDR preset, no other editing at all.

Total shooting time: 9 minutes including setup of tripod, OCD-fueled framing, a couple test shots and the 12 actual exposures...

SORRY for the big Copyright in the middle... too proud of this one to not protect it...



I'm working on an 8mm "Fisheye" version too... will post soon....

PhotoLasVegas

K here's the HDR of the Fisheye.... same camera... using a ProOptic 8mm Fisheye, not 100% sure of the f-stop cuz it was manual but I know it was at least f-11.

I like how this one shows the "Q-bert" floor

This one is only 3 exposures, HRD'ed in CS5, and a little cropping/straightening.

Exposures were 5 seconds, 2.5 seconds, and 1.6 seconds.

bendruckerphoto

I'm not really a big fan of the painting style HDR where it is so heavily tone-mapped that halos start appearing. Personally, I like the fisheye version. But I'd like to see a version that looks more like a photo than a painting/drawing.

BeachBill

That cheap little fish eye does a pretty good job!

So what time of day were you in there? I note a lack of people...

Oh, and I don't see any problems with the HDR processing as I know this is what it really looks like.

jpc

Your ginourmous watermark makes this difficult to appreciate, but I do prefer the fisheye over the "pointing at the ceiling" shot. It's slightly over-processed for my taste, but I still like it. FWIW, a wide angle lens would yield the same shot without the distortion. That's the point I was trying to make in the other thread. The floor adds to the shot without taking anything away from the ceiling. Nice job.

ivar

The fisheye for the win

PhotoLasVegas

Yeah we're pretty happy with that Fisheye - it's not perfect and it's hard to use (fully manual) but we only use it for a few shots per wedding so it's not worth paying $1000+ for one at this point... the "haloing" I think that was discussed (the stars around the lights?) was from the lens itself, not from the processing.

It was taken actually at around 2pm on a Saturday... there were plenty of people, but the long exposures made them disappear! There was a little bit of ghosting but the HDR process seemed to take them out. But yeah, there were people walking past the entire time.

jpc: I took our 17-50m as well and didn't like the look of stuff shot in the 17-25mm range.. the extra wideness didn't add anything.. the top shot is with the 28mm and is the entire ceiling minus a very small part on the top of the photo that was obscured by a portion of the ceiling that hangs lower (the lower part is JUST out of the frame). You can see that part on the very top of the fisheye version, that is actually about 10' lower.

Later today I'll post a non-HDR shot just for a fair comparison to the other photo...

jpc

I used to have a Tokina 11-16 that would have been perfect for this shot. I probably wouldn't have sold it if I lived in Vegas