Is this a tad ambitious.

[arith]

Peterskurche; 1.3 sec hand held, f2.8, 100 iso, 17mm. Looks like I needed a tripod and unfortunately I didn't have one nor even knew if one is allowed.

_MG_3861small by Stephen Davis, on Flickr

[Wavelength]

Very nice; fine lighting

[arith]

Cheers Nandakumar.

[Manfred M]

A handheld 1.3 sec exposure is definitely ambitious, even with a 17mm focal length. I would not be able to pull this shot off without a lot of softness, It seems you had the same issue.

[ionian]

Steve - it's a great attempt at handholding it, but 1.3 secs is always going to be a tough ask. For churches or locations that don't allow tripods, the best option is a small beanbag resting on a pew. You'll find it's remarkably stable and easy to point where you want it. It takes up very little room in a camera bag, and unlike most other photo equipment, even a pro beanbag shouldn't cost very much

[arith]

That's a great idea Simon.

[Manfred M]

Steve - I have a "tabletop" tripod that is perhaps 6" tall max in these situations. No one has stopped me from using one. I prefer it to other solutions because it uses a ball head, just like a regular tripod, so I can set my camera extremely precisely.

[Shadowman]

Sometimes putting the camera on the floor works, sure you get a lot of floor but oh that ceiling.

[JBW]

Architecture such as this is created to awaken your ambitions. So very difficult yes, overly ambitious.... never

[xpatUSA]

In the case of unintended blur, sometimes de-convolution sharpening can be your friend: 0.75 radius and 28 amount. In the case of bright highlights and deepish shadows and high contrast, I sometimes try a reverse 'S' tone curve . .



What an interior! Thanks for giving it a go and posting here.

[IzzieK]

If presented by a scene like this, I would have taken two exposures,one of which dealing with the centre.