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 04:44 "Champ" <neal(a)champ.org.uk> wrote in message news:21sqd5532if1jlbnsl7mnajjj07e85jufi(a)4ax.com... > 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. Take 3,5,7 or even 12 shots, all with different exposures. (this can be performed with one shot in photoshop if the photo was taken in RAW format) there is an app called "photomatix" http://www.hdrsoft.com/ that collates the images and then lets you play around with the effect. -- Vass
From: Chris Bartram on 20 Oct 2009 04:49 Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8314105.stm > Holy shite. What a mess. It looks, well, interesting. But it's not a photo.
From: Champ on 20 Oct 2009 05:04 On 20 Oct 2009 08:41:45 GMT, "CT" <me(a)christrollen.co.uk> wrote: >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. See Vass's post - sounds like it can be generated from a single source image. Which it would have to be with any moving subject matter, like the runners. -- Champ ZX10R (road), ZX10R (race; breaking), GPz750 turbo (classic) Hayabusa (touring) To email me, neal at my domain should work.
From: Vass on 20 Oct 2009 05:07 "Champ" <neal(a)champ.org.uk> wrote in message news:f6vqd59ei7tiekhf2b8htqavkf5puvs80p(a)4ax.com... > On 20 Oct 2009 08:41:45 GMT, "CT" <me(a)christrollen.co.uk> wrote: > > See Vass's post - sounds like it can be generated from a single source > image. Which it would have to be with any moving subject matter, like > the runners. this one was a single shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/canon-eos/3276503263/ explaination on how it was done is written below the "photograph" -- Vass
From: doetnietcomputeren on 20 Oct 2009 05:12
On 2009-10-20 11:04:12 +0200, Champ <neal(a)champ.org.uk> said: >>> 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. > > See Vass's post - sounds like it can be generated from a single source > image. Which it would have to be with any moving subject matter, like > the runners. One photo of the landscape without the runners, another with the runners, combine the two. -- Dnc |