So, having felt photographically inadequate for quite some time (thank you flickr) and being on an extreme budget (like, a thread on a shoe-string) I had started to accept that there was only so much I could do with what I had. The hope is still there though. The friend that inspired me to go for it takes truly incredible photos with a camera considerably older and with fewer functions than mine. And he has no add-ons. No home studio, no flashgun. Heck, I don't think he even owns a tripod.
I've got a good eye for shots, I know that much, and I've grown up with PS so I reason I could make my ordinary shots a little less ordinary (somehow). I shoot in RAW & JPEG but don't have any plug-ins to play with the RAW shots yet (I'm savin' 'em, I'm savin').
I'll get some extension tubes when I can afford them as what I'm most interested in are macro shots, and maybes even a wide-angle for landscapes.
CallmeGoose inspired me today to give HDR a shot. I never thought I had taken shots of anything worth trying them on. Most people seem to go for pretty spectacular landscapes and the like. Plus I had never considered the technique for photo-realistic shots, most stuff I'd seen was more artsy. I've got some truly dull shots of Arthurs seat I'd like to try HDR on but would rather be more clued up before I waste any time on it.
Not really a technique I would use with a closeup shot but wanted to test first on the worst/blurryasfuck photo I took that day.
Now really, not more than 5 mins was spent on either of these. They are single JPEGS yadda, yadda.
Apart from the obvious like the haloing on the rose (and lets not talk about the top rail/sky scenario (fuck that shit)), am I on the right track, bearing in mind that I want to stay away from the fairy-tale look?