HDR Hell
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Handle bar engine kill switch or ignition key switch to stop bike?
Next: Specific clock type required
From: Vass on 20 Oct 2009 03:32 "Simes" <simes(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:hbjm2s$icj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> Yep. Most of them have been affected/inflicted by the current craze for >> sliding the saturation lever too far and also doing HDR in excess. >> Bloody awful. > > It's the current trend old bean. HDR can look good in certain > circumstances - but mostly it makes the photo look like a CGI image and > not real at all. agreed. but sometimes even though its "not as the eye would see it" the effect is quite good Here's one of mine. http://www.flickr.com/photos/canon-eos/3239671634/in/set-72157619731686007/ I guess its personal taste. -- Vass
From: Champ on 20 Oct 2009 04:15 On 20 Oct 2009 07:28:50 GMT, "CT" <me(a)christrollen.co.uk> wrote: >Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm >> Holy shite. What a mess. >I don't know what HDR stands for, but I looked at those yesterday and >realised sometihng wasn't quite right. I'm starting to find my way round a digi camera, and I don't know what HDR is either. Wikipedia says it's 'High Dynamic Range', but the article doesn't really tell me how it's achieved - there's lots of references to multiple images, which I'm sure weren't used here (certainly not in the case of the runners). But, as you say, there's something "not quite right" about them. >There should be a limit on post-processing, or the amount should >notified to inform the casual viewer. That'd be impossible to draft, or enforce. The judgement should be "does it look good". I'm surprised that the judges here have voted for such processed images - perhaps they all work for image software companies. -- Champ ZX10R (road), ZX10R (race; breaking), GPz750 turbo (classic) Hayabusa (touring) To email me, neal at my domain should work.
From: Malc on 20 Oct 2009 04:20 On 20 Oct, 02:41, Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm > Holy shite. What a mess. The first time I saw those I thought they were created by one of those landscape generating programs. -- Malc
From: CT on 20 Oct 2009 04:41 spike1(a)freenet.co.uk wrote: > High Definition Range. > > Take 3 photos at different exposures (one normal, one under exposed > (dark), one over exposed (light)) and use photoshop or gimp to take > out the brightest bits from normal replacing them with the bits from > dark, take the darkest bits from normal and replace them with the > same bits from light and.. well, blend them together. So it's not *a* photograph then. And further to my point about making the viewer aware, and to address Champ's point of it not being enforceable, why not make the photographer state that it's a composite of X images? -- Chris
From: Alex Ferrier on 20 Oct 2009 04:44
CT wrote: > > Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm >> Holy shite. What a mess. > > I don't know what HDR stands for, but I looked at those yesterday and > realised sometihng wasn't quite right. > > There should be a limit on post-processing, or the amount should > notified to inform the casual viewer. > Yeah, same here. I looked at those last night and thought that they looked unreal. Didn't know what HDR was either. -- Alex BMW R1150GS MZ Saxon 301 DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8 Windy's "little soldier" |