# Save me from Ken Rockwell's advice



## Photongraphy (Sep 19, 2010)

So, I decided to read Ken Rockwell's website for a while. It was the #1 result on Google for photography advice. However, I tend to seek other opinions before making any kind of purchase, so I googled "Ken Rockwell is a dumbass" and "Ken Rockwell is an idiot," the later which brought up this site.

A lot of people seem to disagree with him. 

For a total newbie just starting out (I've been into the... point and shoot... scene... oh dear), what kind of camera is recommended? I'd love to take beautiful, clear pictures such as this:

File:Hong Kong Skyline Restitch - Dec 2007.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

I don't understand the whole "lens" thingmabob, and I don't know what kind of DSLR I need. Any help would be greatly appreciated. :mrgreen: However, I don't want advice for Point & Shoot cameras. Right now, I am only interested in DSLR's due to what I've read everywhere.

EDIT: Oh yeah, one more thing. I've been looking at this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120355


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2010)

Photongraphy said:


> so I googled "Ken Rockwell is a dumbass" and "Ken Rockwell is an idiot,"http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120355


OK, that actually made me laugh, lol.

Read this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm



> While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other  good news organization, I love to stretch the truth if   it  makes an  article  more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain  silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense  of humor, _please treat this entire site as a   work of fiction_.


----------



## Photongraphy (Sep 19, 2010)

Yeah, I read it. However, most people aren't going to read that horrific wall of text. I'm basically looking for advice on getting started.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2010)

But _you did_ read it, so you should know better...  Half of what he says is good advice, the other half is pure BS...  If you can't tell which is which, don't read his site.

For getting started, this forum is as good a place as any...


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 19, 2010)

Photongraphy said:


> So, I decided to read Ken Rockwell's website for a while. It was the #1 result on Google for photography advice. However, I tend to seek other opinions before making any kind of purchase, so I googled "Ken Rockwell is a dumbass" and "Ken Rockwell is an idiot," the later which brought up this site.
> 
> A lot of people seem to disagree with him.
> 
> ...



That photo you linked to is more about one's photoshop skills then the camera.  It's a restitch that could be done from photos from a 5 year old point and shoot. 

My advice is to keep educating yourself about photography and then pick a camera system that suits you.  Most people do the reverse of this.

Where do you stand on these topics?

Low Light photography
Macro photography
Telephoto photography
Resolution/Sharpness
Narrow depth of field 
Speed


----------



## farmerj (Sep 19, 2010)

try Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide


----------



## KmH (Sep 19, 2010)

From the beginning of Ken's About page:



> *[SIZE=+3]Caveat Lector![/SIZE]* (reader beware!)
> I do this site for fun. It is my personal website. I do this site all by myself. This site is provided only for the entertainment of our kids and our dogs....
> 
> ..While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I love to stretch the truth if it makes an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, _please treat this entire site as a work of fiction_..​


​


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 19, 2010)

Yes (...like I said...), and if you can't see the humor even in that quote, there's something wrong with you...

"just like any other good news organization, I love to stretch the truth"...  
I mean..., come on...!  That's good stuff, lol.

If you can separate the fact from the fiction, his site is not bad...  And If you just want a good read, it's actually quite funny.

Personally, I love his site.  But not for the 'review' aspect of it.  He certainly has the same sense of humor that I do - I find his site hilarious as hell.

It's not his fault that it's the top result for any photography search on google...


----------



## Photongraphy (Sep 19, 2010)

Thanks for the replies. I'm probably wrong about everything, but...



> Low Light photography


Like night vision? I'd love some good exposure setting with a remote control to catch photos of the stars, the milky way backdrop, etc... The idea of attaching the camera to a telescope is appealing.



> Macro photography


I think I've used this once. I guess it's to focus on something? *shrug*



> Telephoto photography


The zoom feature on my Point & Shoot is lame. I would like the ability to zoom without getting something that looks like Quake 1.



> Resolution/Sharpness


In my opinion, the higher the resolution, the better it looks when resized, and the more detail is in the picture. Furthermore, I think sharpness is good, because I hate blurry photos. Doesn't that have to do with ISO?



> Narrow depth of field


No idea.



> Speed


Shooting pictures quickly? Yes, I like this.

And what kind of card should I use? 64 GB SDHC? Any particular brands to avoid, etc...?



EDIT: I guess what matters to me the most is superb image quality with excellent low-light capabilities, a remote shutter switch, and a high resolution. I want to take night pictures of the cities I visit. I need to be able to manually set my exposure time, rather than be limited to 15 seconds on my current Point & Shoot. A good tripod would be sorely needed as well, preferably one that can handle panoramas. Right now, I use a cheap tripod and just manually turn it. :meh:


----------



## ann (Sep 19, 2010)

It is wonderful when he reviews a piece of equipment he has never used


----------



## Garbz (Sep 20, 2010)

Low light photography: This just refers to the moments when you need to pull out a tripod. The term can be used for anything like a typical indoor house at night, to night time photo such as the city you just linked to, to star photography. The first is trivial to learn, the second a bit of a beyond the basics type thing, however taking photos of stars through satellites is a very advanced topic and would by easily considered throwing yourself in the very deep end. 

Macro Photography: Taking photos of something small

Telephotography: Taking pictures of something far away. This does not imply zooming. It just implies far away. You can get fixed telephoto lenses and they cost as much as a small car, but have prevented many national geographic photographers from getting eaten by their subjects.

Resolution and sharpness: One of the things to learn is how the system works, not just the camera. The Nikon D2h has a lower resolution sensor (megapixels) than the iPhone 4, but it takes far better and sharper pictures because of the glass.

ISO: The sensitivity of the camera. The higher ISO the brighter the resulting image when everything else is held constant. 

Narrow depth of field: Picture says 1000 words: http://www.dphotoexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/true1point2web.jpg



For your desires basically any DSLR and even many modern flexible point and shoots like the Canon G10 would suffice too.


----------



## Photongraphy (Sep 20, 2010)

Thanks. I appear to have mixed up Narrow Depth of Field. I thought that was a macro technique. Great advice, thanks!

So pretty much any DSLR will do? I find this very appealing:

Newegg.com - Canon EOS Rebel T1i Black 15.10 MP 3.0&#34; 920K LCD Full HD Movie Digital SLR Camera w&#47; EF-S 18-55mm f&#47;3.5-5.6 IS Lens

with a tripod:

Newegg.com - VANGUARD Alta&#43; 263AP Aluminum Alloy Tripod with Panhead

But I need to know what kind of flash card I would need. I'm a little confused. Hoping for something around 64 GB if possible. Any advice?


----------



## ann (Sep 20, 2010)

why a 64gb card? that is huge and expensive as well.

check out 4-8 gb , still do the job not as expensive and will hold quite a few images.

check your manual and see what class card they recommend. if your doing video then probably a class 6 card or higher
i personal use either lexar or sandisk


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 20, 2010)

My main cards are 3 8GB Sandisk CF cards. With 21mp image files, I'm getting about 300 images to a card. 

You'll get more with a T2i as it has smaller file sizes. Also, if you were to have a 64GB card fail with 2000 images on it, you're porbably not getting them back. Not to mention the amount of time it would take to download the files from the card and have you even though about how much storage you'll need on your PC?


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 20, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Low light photography: This just refers to the moments when you need to pull out a tripod. The term can be used for anything like a typical indoor house at night, to night time photo such as the city you just linked to, to star photography. The first is trivial to learn, the second a bit of a beyond the basics type thing, however taking photos of stars through satellites is a very advanced topic and would by easily considered throwing yourself in the very deep end.
> 
> Macro Photography: Taking photos of something small
> 
> ...



The significance of that list of topics is that they are the topics that will determine which camera/lens combo is right for you.

Of course you could buy a kit that will do it all, but you'll be spending thousands.  If you can narrow down what particular things are important to you and what are less important, we can give you advice on equipment choices.


----------



## Whootsinator (Sep 20, 2010)

Holy crap you're clueless! Alright, that's not a necessarily a bad thing at this point... We've all been clueless at one time or another.

Go here:

Exposure Lessons, in order  Stop Shooting Auto!

Read all of those very simple, very short, and very easy to understand lessons. When you're done, read them again. Finally, read them a third time. After that, just have fun with it. Practice practice practice.


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 20, 2010)

OK, let's start from scratch.

What do you want to shoot (in order of desires) and how much do you want to spend.

Are you willing to buy used equipment to fill out your kit quicker or do you want to only buy new.

Do you have a brand preference or are you willing to to go with whichever more closely suits your needs.

Have you been to this site and read it's tutorials..  Digital Photography Tutorials

Does your ego require the latest and greatest or can you relax and save for the best in glass.

Let us know the answers to these and we'll steer you in the right direction.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 23, 2010)

I am a beginner.

I've been a beginner for almost five decades. 

Every year, I've learned new stuff.  Every year, that newly-aquired knowledge just showed me how ignorant I was, and still am.  But there is progress, of sorts.  Every year, my knowledge of my ignorance grows.  Getting knowledge and experience is a little like climbing out of a hole and up a mountain.  At the beginning, the whole known world is what you see around you - heck, you can almost touch the sides.  Then you get out of the hole (acquire that first little bit of knowledge), and suddenly the horizon recedes and there's a lot more territory to explore.  As you start working up that mountain, the horizon recedes even more...  Damn, the world's becoming a pretty big place.

It's a good journey.  Just remember to learn the fundamentals.  You don't need fancy gear to learn about composition, lighting, posing.  Sure, good gear, like good tools, help you get to the objective, but good gear cannot compensate for lack of knowledge, judgement, and skill.

Previous posters have given good advice.  Figure out what you want to do, then acquire the gear you need.  If you are truly a beginner, then start with a good point-and-shoot, and go and shoot lots and lots.  Then see what you seem to be photographing the most - that's probably where you want to spend more effort on.  If you find yourself frustrated because the shots you want to take just can't be captured by your equipment, then excellent - you've learned some thing useful to guide your purchases.

Probably even more important than gear, is joining a local photo club, hanging around photographers (the good ones), and finding yourself a mentor who can guide you.  Learning from the experience of others is one of the best ways to get better.  Forums like this one are good, but hands-on advice is much faster.

May your journey be fun, engaging, and educational.


----------



## necoo (Sep 23, 2010)

Low light photography: This just refers to the moments when you need to  pull out a tripod. The term can be used for anything like a typical  indoor house at night, to night time photo such as the city you just  linked to, to star photography. The first is trivial to learn, the  second a bit of a beyond the basics type thing, however taking photos of  stars through satellites is a very advanced topic and would by easily  considered throwing yourself in the very deep end.


----------



## flea77 (Sep 24, 2010)

Both this site and Ken Rockwell's have great information. Everyone will disagree with someone so I would not worry about that much. I have seen arguments like "the sky is blue" and "no, the sky is not blue, what you see is the scattering of blue light due to the absorption of other wavelengths", then "no, the sky is blue, look!" and on, and on, and on. Ken gives some great advice, and some not so great advice, just like everyone else on the planet. I have to admit, I do enjoy his sense of humor though.

Allan


----------



## inTempus (Sep 24, 2010)

flea77 said:


> Both this site and Ken Rockwell's have great information. Everyone will disagree with someone so I would not worry about that much. I have seen arguments like "the sky is blue" and "no, the sky is not blue, what you see is the scattering of blue light due to the absorption of other wavelengths", then "no, the sky is blue, look!" and on, and on, and on. Ken gives some great advice, and some not so great advice, just like everyone else on the planet. I have to admit, I do enjoy his sense of humor though.
> 
> Allan


Ken is a talentless hack that thinks his "reviews" of items he's never actually held are funny.  He's not funny, his site is a joke and I would never buy anything based on his review.


----------



## flea77 (Sep 25, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Ken is a talentless hack that thinks his "reviews" of items he's never actually held are funny.  He's not funny, his site is a joke and I would never buy anything based on his review.



And as I was saying, others may say the same thing of you. Everyone has their opinions, no one is ever 100% correct. I personally think there is some great info on his site (others disagree), but I have found a wealth of factual information there that has really helped (factual, such as lens specs, variations, features, etc).

Allan


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 25, 2010)

inTempus said:


> I would never buy anything based on his review.


Neither would I, but I do think his site is funny...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2010)

inTempus said:


> Ken is a talentless hack that thinks his "reviews" of items he's never actually held are funny.  He's not funny, his site is a joke and I would never buy anything based on his review.



He has only 40 years' worth of experience in photography too, so add "newbie" to the list. It's fun to bash people, isn't it!

He does have some good insights on equipment, and price-value propositions, and "alternative equipment options". He's one of many voices on the internet, but his site does have a disclaimer. The thing is, many newbies are not adequately well-versed in the basics or in the equipment types he reviews to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, the humor from the truth, etc,etc. He has some interesting perspectives, and he's mostly a Nikon and Leica shooter, so a lot of people will be predisposed to hate anything he says with a knee-jerk type of reaction, or from having fallen for one of his many humorous "recommendations" that were intended as a joke.

The easiest way to save yourself is..not to read him.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 25, 2010)

Photongraphy said:


> So, I decided to read Ken Rockwell's website for a while. It was the #1 result on Google for photography advice. However, I tend to seek other opinions before making any kind of purchase, so I googled "Ken Rockwell is a dumbass" and "Ken Rockwell is an idiot," the later which brought up this site.
> 
> A lot of people seem to disagree with him.
> 
> ...




Guy goes to the Doctor and complains of arm pain when he raises his right arm.  Doctor has him demonstrate and when the guy puts raises his right arm over his head he yelps in pain.  

Doctor asks, so it hurts when you do that?  Guy says yes.  Doctor say, Well don't do that!"

Don't go to Rockwells page and the problem is solved. :lmao:



P.S.   Your bill is $40.00.  Send it in cash to my office.  You have to fill out the insurance paperwork you self or get a congressman to do it for you.   I only take cash.


----------



## lenz32 (May 26, 2011)

Disclaimer: I haven't read everything he's written. 

I did the search because I was sick of hearing "well Ken R says...". Who IS this guy. Well, I finally figured it out, he's the P.T. Barnum of the photo world. He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? He's not an Adams, a Weston or even a Leibovitz. He doesn't make his living with his camera, he makes it with his mouth. ("I make my living from this web site"). Huh? Why is ANYONE listening to him. Until recently his favorite camera was a Nikon D40 because 'that's all anyone really needs'. Say what? If that's true, why did he switch?  I'm the first to say its the photographer not the box, but seriously? You don't build a house with pliers. The right tool for the right job DOES have its place. He skips that. You have to KNOW the rules before knowing when to break them(creatively).

I've seen many here being kind, saying that half of what he says is BS. Yes, VERY kind. One of the more glaring (to me) comments is that he's constantly fiddling with controls, exposure over rides, etc. to "fix" things. That rates a bigger ?HUH? If its not close enough that you can't fix it in post, nothing you do in camera is going to help. If you know the theory behind the Zone System, you'll know what you can get, and how to get it without making a project of it. And I came from the days when it was perfect on film or you just plain got to shoot it again. 

Truth: there is a certain amount of luck in photography. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Truth: if you take too long you loose the moment. Truth: Over reworked photos just never look "right". They're like a Britney Spears song, just plain over produced. 

Ken R, go get a day job. I'm tired of debunking the BS for people without the background knowledge to understand my explanations and too lazy to learn to know BS when they smell it. That brings me to my purpose, beyond the brute rant. Can we P.L.E.A.S.E get this guy off the top of the search engines? Pretty please?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 26, 2011)

Photongraphy said:


> Yeah, I read it. However, most people aren't going to read that horrific wall of text.


 
So they won't read the horrific wall of text that includes a disclaimer (right at the beginning), but will read several reviews on cameras?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 26, 2011)

lenz32 said:


> Disclaimer: I haven't read everything he's written.
> 
> I did the search because I was sick of hearing "well Ken R says...". Who IS this guy. Well, I finally figured it out, he's the P.T. Barnum of the photo world. He talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? He's not an Adams, a Weston or even a Leibovitz. He doesn't make his living with his camera, he makes it with his mouth. ("I make my living from this web site"). Huh? Why is ANYONE listening to him. Until recently his favorite camera was a Nikon D40 because 'that's all anyone really needs'. Say what? If that's true, why did he switch?  I'm the first to say its the photographer not the box, but seriously? You don't build a house with pliers. The right tool for the right job DOES have its place. He skips that. You have to KNOW the rules before knowing when to break them(creatively).
> 
> ...


 
You're tired of debunking Ken Rockwell after one whole post? Maybe forums aren't the place for you...

I know he's an idiot. But really...


----------



## Joshonator (May 26, 2011)

Here's some advice. It's easy to get caught up in fancy camera features when buying your first SLR. So set a budget on how much you are willing to spend in total, then spend 1/3 of that on the camera body and 2/3 on lenses (less than 1/3 on the camera body is also fine).

The problem with ken (in my opinion) is that he states his point of view in a very matter-of-fact way on topics that are clearly debatable.


----------



## molested_cow (May 26, 2011)

I don't understand why people have problems with other's "opinions". I mean, it's freaking opinions!

I go to Ken Rockwell's website quite often to find out lens comparisons. I go there when I know exactly which lens I want to find out more about. I read the comparison feedbacks and the test photos. These is not information that I can find out conveniently by myself. I can also go to other people's websites to find out the same information. Ultimately, all of these websites are based on personal opinions. It's like when I shop in Amazon.com, I will read user feedbacks before making my choice. It's all subjective, and it's up to your wisdom to make it objective for yourself.

So Ken Rockwell makes money off the website he put up and you have a problem with it? Hmmm..... ok, what has he done wrong? Has he committed a crime? Did you get tricked into paying to read his opinions? If anything he's being generous for offering his opinion for FREE and hope someone donates him some money. If you really have problem with his website, then make your own and better him! "Talk the talk"? Who's talking?


----------



## 480sparky (May 26, 2011)

Start your own website and fill it with the drivel you spew out about photo gear.  That'll show him!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 26, 2011)

i like dpreview.com, I haven't spent as much time on ken rockwell's site


----------



## shuttermountain (May 26, 2011)

Ken Rockwell can be given some (but not all) credit for getting me back into DSLR photography. I, like thousands of others purchased a Nikon D40 based on his recommendations. Fast forward a few years and after reading about the D90 on his website and along with plenty of other web research, I purchased a D90.

Like any website, it is up to you to discern whether the info presented there is good or not for your particular knowledge and experience level. That said, I have seen very bad advise on some of the most popular photography websites and forums...including this one. And to also be fair, Rockwell's advise is not 100% either.

Lastly, it also always amazes me that for so many people who have claim to have such a professed dislike for Rockwell that they sure are up to speed on his latest reviews etc...


----------



## Village Idiot (May 27, 2011)

shuttermountain said:


> Ken Rockwell can suck a dick(but not all of them).



Bravo! Well said, sir!


----------



## shuttermountain (May 27, 2011)

Reported this *falsified quote* and post ^^^ from Village Idiot.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 27, 2011)

Fanboi.


----------



## Mike_E (May 27, 2011)

Save you from Ken Rockwell?

Cant be done because you can't be saved from yourself.








sorry about that


----------



## dallasimagery (May 27, 2011)

+1 for being a dumbass


----------



## Joshonator (May 30, 2011)

molested_cow said:


> I don't understand why people have problems with other's "opinions". I mean, it's freaking opinions!
> 
> I go to Ken Rockwell's website quite often to find out lens comparisons. I go there when I know exactly which lens I want to find out more about. I read the comparison feedbacks and the test photos. These is not information that I can find out conveniently by myself. I can also go to other people's websites to find out the same information. Ultimately, all of these websites are based on personal opinions. It's like when I shop in Amazon.com, I will read user feedbacks before making my choice. It's all subjective, and it's up to your wisdom to make it objective for yourself.
> 
> So Ken Rockwell makes money off the website he put up and you have a problem with it? Hmmm..... ok, what has he done wrong? Has he committed a crime? Did you get tricked into paying to read his opinions? If anything he's being generous for offering his opinion for FREE and hope someone donates him some money. If you really have problem with his website, then make your own and better him! "Talk the talk"? Who's talking?



I disagree that he's generous. He reels you in by making it free (but honestly who would pay to look at that stuff) and then puts a donation button on every page and pictures of his cute kids on the front page and states that his family is supported by the donations. I have yet to be on a photography site that asks for money more blatantly than his.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 31, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Fanboi.



I must have been drunk.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 31, 2011)

shuttermountain said:


> Reported this *falsified quote* and post ^^^ from Village Idiot.




Is this your first time on the internets?


----------



## Ginu (May 31, 2011)

Ken's opinions are biased towards NIkon because hes a Nikon fanboi... and reading his opinions/reviews are free; dont like them then dont read them and don't donate. Nobody is stopping you.

He is a good read and always has something to compare against when someone is interested in making a purchase. Sometimes, his reviews are very informative and dont require much searching to get extra details, test photos graps and so on... one big disadvantage is the fact he doesn't update all his reviews based on new products and some readers fall into traps by purchasing cameras like the D40 (not that there is anything wrong with it) as a starter when there are new models out.

As the shopper you should really do a lot of researching b4 dropping some fat cash on certain products based on others opinions... Can you make your own decisions or are you a sheep and follow others?
Sadly you are the only person who can provide the help you desire and not others on this forum.


----------



## lenz32 (Sep 1, 2011)

Forums should be so lucky that I have the time and inclination to write. I certainly don't have the former, and irregularly have the latter. FYI, I do my debunking IN PERSON. I don't spend the majority of my time (3,144+ posts?) hiding behind a keyboard. Perhaps if you spent less time POSTING and more time either learning, shooting or, perhaps, both, you'd have something worthwhile to contribute. I shot commercial advertising in the LA market for 10 years when I burnt out, sold my gear and walked away. I started collecting the cameras of my youth a couple years ago and bought (for my collection) and sold (to dispose of unacceptable pieces) when I discovered the FUN had returned to taking the occasional picture and, even more importantly, passing along some of the things I learned about practical shooting to those who came, often looking for their first "whatever". That's where I started hearing the name Ken Rockwell. Very little research led me to the conclusion he IS an idiot and I still wonder why or how he comes to the top of the search lists. True story: I did a camera show a couple weeks ago. Among the bodies I had for sale were Nikon D40x, D50, D70s, D100, D200, Canon 10D, 20D, 30D, and 40D. A young gentleman walked up, glanced at the selection and asked "do you have any D40s?" No, I don't. He walked away. I'll give you one guess why he walked. After all, a D40 is all you need, right? So no, I didn't go through the "no, but I do have a number of arguably superior choices" routine for the 10th time that morning. I guess you'll just have to fault me for not writing all about it in a FORUM; and again for not teaching everything I learned about photography, color, light, and gear learned in 40+ years of shooting to EVERY random stranger that passes by. Still, I prefer personal communication. So I guess you are right, maybe forums are NOT for me.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2011)

Wow, two whole posts in slightly under a year.  Both in the same thread.  You are a real go getter there aren't you Sparky?


----------



## ScubaDude (Sep 2, 2011)

If you want the T1i, skip Newegg and buy it from Amazon... it's $100 cheaper.

I now return the thread back to bashing Ken Rockwell and bashing those who bash Ken Rockwell.

/edit: I see that this thread is a year old, and the OP abandoned it long ago. Sorry to interrupt the Ken Rockwell bashing.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 2, 2011)

noob. this one is better and cheaper. Plus you get a bonus 55-200mm lens and a bag of other cheap-o goodies.

Canon EOS Rebel T3i 18.0 MP Digital SLR Camera - Black Kit w Canon 18-55mm and 55-250mm Lens | eBay

the photo you linked to is made up of 26 hdr images. he used 3 exposure of each section and then merged those to hdr and then merged the hdr images into a panoramic image. you have to have photoshop and also how to use the hold function on a dslr. im guessing from your statement that you do not have a dslr or photoshop so this would be hard to explain. this is a relatively complex and extensive process to render an image of this nature.


----------



## Overread (Sep 2, 2011)

Hmm since the OP appears to have been saved - and since I don't want to have to force lenz32 to have to write again - I'll save further members of the site and put a little lock here


----------

