HDR Hell
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Handle bar engine kill switch or ignition key switch to stop bike?
Next: Specific clock type required
From: Switters on 20 Oct 2009 07:07 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:32:26 GMT, Vass wrote: > 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-72157619731686 > 007/ I guess its personal taste. Quite. I like the more subtler versions of HDR composites. Some seem to go all out to get the halo effect in Photomatix which I'm not a fan of. When done right, I think it can work well. Here's a couple of mine: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29162046(a)N04/3815570030/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/29162046(a)N04/3638468408/ I've been playing around with Mediachance's HDR tool, which is a bit cheaper than Photomatix, but I find I have to work harder to achieve a nice result. That said, it has some wonderful tools, particularly the ability to pin parts of the image to align them. I don't use my tripod as much as I should.
From: davethedave on 20 Oct 2009 07:00 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:32:26 +0100, Vass wrote: > "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. Like the Leadenhall Market shot. I used to go for a sneaky lunchtime pint in the boozer in there sometimes. -- davethedave
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 20 Oct 2009 07:08 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Jim <null(a)0.0.0.0> saying something like: >You're like the people who want magazines to put warnings on the >pictures where the models have been touched up. "Oi, keep your hands to yourself!"
From: Switters on 20 Oct 2009 07:30 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:50:52 GMT, CT wrote: > To go back to the original subject, I *knew* there was something "not > quite right" with the photos in the gallery, but I didn't know what. I > would have liked to have known. Why? You either like the result or you don't. In the old days one had to dodge and burn at the printing stage. Or develop the wrong process to get wacky colours. Post-processing isn't new, neither is HDR. Computers have just made both a lot easier.
From: CT on 20 Oct 2009 07:43
Switters wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:50:52 GMT, CT wrote: > > > To go back to the original subject, I knew there was something "not > > quite right" with the photos in the gallery, but I didn't know > > what. I would have liked to have known. > > Why? You either like the result or you don't. I'm sorry that this answer isn't in the spirit of intelligent debate, but "because". It's probably because I enjoy looking at photographs and I would like to know what I'm looking at, or at least how a particular look or effect has been achieved. How else is one supposed to learn? > In the old days one > had to dodge and burn at the printing stage. Or develop the wrong > process to get wacky colours. Post-processing isn't new, neither is > HDR. Computers have just made both a lot easier. I do realise this. I'm not anti post-processing at all, but as someone who knows little about it, it would be nice to be told, rather than me just thinking "that looks a bit weird to me"[1] [1] Which has no effect on liking it or not. I did like many of those photos, but didn't know what I was looking at, IYSWIM. -- Chris |