Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 337 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 3363
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,562
    Nice image of the bridge. I know you cannot get a true HDR from on image. It just simulates the HDR look. You can set the three different exposures from the one RAW image and get a decent HDR,
    Frank
    Sony A77
    Sony A580
    Sony A 100
    Maxxum 400si.
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70
    Minolta AF 50 f/1.7
    Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD
    Tamron 60mm Macro
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    Tamron 2x Converter
    Sony HVL-F42AM
    Quantaray 70-300 4.5-5.6 Macro
    Slingshot 200 Bag



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22083244@N06/

    http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/sparkie1263/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Hi Frank, I don't buy that explanation and whomever sold it to you did you no favours.

    The camera sensor has a specific dynamic range and no amount of post processing will change that.
    Yes you can take an image and, for instance, simulate an overexposure and the highlights will appear burnt out. But you can also reverse the process because the detail is still there, just hidden.
    If the image was overexposed when you took it and the highlights are burnt out, there's no detail present to process, so you can fiddle about all you like and there'll still be no detail.
    And yes you can use HDR processing to make a poorly exposed image look better but there are tools better suited to the job in Photoshop and in Elements.
    On the other hand, a real HDR image aggregates the "good" data from however many frames you process and discards the "bad" data, so blown highlights are discarded in favour of more detailed highlight and so on with midrange and shadow detail. In this way you get an image with a greater dynamic range than can be recorded by the camera sensor in a single exposure.

    I don't like to preach but you are better off learning good practise rather than wasting your time using HDR in a way never intended.
    Done right, HDR can produce spectacular results but there are downsides, like your monitor can't reproduce the dynamic range of a proper HDR, neither can your printer, so the 32-bit HDR is reduced to 8 or 16-bit and squashed (dynamically) for viewing. Therefore, not every picture is suitable for HDR treatment and not every HDR looks impressive, and that's where the individual expertise of the photographer comes into play, again.

    Peter (trying to be helpful)

    Hey dr4gon, how much discussion like this is appropriate in this thread or should it be elsewhere.
    Last edited by Peekayoh; 12-04-2008 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Second thought.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    176
    [IMG][/IMG]
    Last edited by millz; 12-04-2008 at 07:01 PM.
    Sony A350
    Sony 18-250mm Lens
    Sony 50mm f1.4
    F42AM flash

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Peek, well done! I've done that as well. Great simple easy trick to do in photoshop with masks! The reflections are so calming! Did you use a tripod for this? or just really good steady hands and alignment?
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    You're joking dr4gon! Steady hands at my age. Tripod, Tripod, Tripod! (get it)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Got it! lol..... tripod = perfection everytime!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,562
    Thanks Peter
    I have alot to learn both behind the camera and after the shot. I just like messing around to see what I come up with.
    Frank
    Sony A77
    Sony A580
    Sony A 100
    Maxxum 400si.
    Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
    Minolta AF 35-70
    Minolta AF 50 f/1.7
    Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD
    Tamron 60mm Macro
    Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
    Tamron 2x Converter
    Sony HVL-F42AM
    Quantaray 70-300 4.5-5.6 Macro
    Slingshot 200 Bag



    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22083244@N06/

    http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn219/sparkie1263/

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Millz, your image, to me, appears washed out.
    That may be because I tend towards low key images unlike this one.
    I would have post processed and given this a bit of a kick in the curves dialog.
    Doesn't mean yours is wrong though.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    30
    Thanks dr4gon & Peek.

    dr4gon, actually a storm was approaching when I took that shot.

    Peek, love that apple shot, very sharp & 3D like. Great lens!

    The owl's eyes sure look as big as a marble

    Camera: Sony DSLR-A300
    Lens: Tamron AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Focal Length: 300mm
    Exposure: ISO 400
    Exposure Time: 1/50
    Aperture: f/5.6
    White Balance: Auto
    Metering Mode: Pattern
    Flash: No

    Last edited by oric1; 12-05-2008 at 06:32 AM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    That's a beady stare if ever saw one. Good work.

    As for the "Apple" lens, I was expecting that choice to stir up some debate, but it didn't. Go figure.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •