Hi! I was taken aback (not chuffed) by the scene. It looks to me as something taken out of a computer game, quite unreal. Personally, I prefer B&W or even Sepia if I were to present a photo differently, but as they say in France: "Vive la différence"! Cheers, Marcel
> I was taken aback (not chuffed) by the scene. It looks to me as something > taken out of a computer game, quite unreal. Personally, I prefer B&W or > even Sepia if I were to present a photo differently, but as they say in > France: "Vive la différence"!
I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image quite well. The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black at the top).
>> I was taken aback (not chuffed) by the scene. It looks to me as something >> taken out of a computer game, quite unreal. Personally, I prefer B&W or >> even Sepia if I were to present a photo differently, but as they say in >> France: "Vive la différence"!
>> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the >> tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying >> results.
>> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over the top is not necessarily the best way to go. HDR processing is a useful tool, and will always be a personal taste issue. Some HDR images work well with great results and others are best left alone. I fear there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
There is no accounting for taste.
> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image quite > well.
Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition would have been better.
> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping > process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the > right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black at > the top).
Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed with other adjustments.
>>> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the >>> tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying >>> results.
>>> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
> Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in > application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over > the top is not necessarily the best way to go. > HDR processing is a useful tool, and will always be a personal taste > issue. Some HDR images work well with great results and others are best > left alone. I fear there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
> There is no accounting for taste.
>> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image >> quite well.
> Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition > would have been better.
>> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping >> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the >> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black >> at the top).
> Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed > with other adjustments.
Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all) processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of tonemapping for the ground and sky.
The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky meet:
> Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in > application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over > the top is not necessarily the best way to go. HDR processing is a > useful tool, and will always be a personal taste issue. Some HDR images > work well with great results and others are best left alone. I fear > there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
> There is no accounting for taste.
>> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image >> quite well.
> Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition > would have been better.
Actually, I agree. I just posted it as a fact instead of an opinion because you did the same in your other reply:
---8<------8<------8<------8<--- Waaaaaay too much!
Subtlety is the way to go, even with strong HDR. ---8<------8<------8<------8<---
>> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping >> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the >> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black >> at the top).
> Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed > with other adjustments.
Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all) processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of tonemapping for the ground and sky.
The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky meet:
>> Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in >> application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over >> the top is not necessarily the best way to go. HDR processing is a >> useful tool, and will always be a personal taste issue. Some HDR images >> work well with great results and others are best left alone. I fear >> there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
>> There is no accounting for taste.
>>> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image >>> quite well.
>> Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition >> would have been better.
> Actually, I agree. I just posted it as a fact instead of an opinion > because you did the same in your other reply:
> ---8<------8<------8<------8<--- > Waaaaaay too much!
> Subtlety is the way to go, even with strong HDR. > ---8<------8<------8<------8<---
>>> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping >>> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the >>> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black >>> at the top).
>> Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed >> with other adjustments.
> Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all) > processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of > tonemapping for the ground and sky.
> The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as > the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky > meet:
Savageduck wrote: > On 2009-11-01 16:47:36 -0800, noauth <a...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> > said: >> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my >> first effort. >> What do you think? >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the > tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying > results.
> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
Depends on one's point of view, I guess. I like it best, reminds me of late 19th century impressionism.
--
dadiOH ____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Looks like an out of focus cartoon. Other's may like it, I don't The HDR effect is over done, and looks as if it was done for the purpose of showing that one can do HDR, rather than using it to create art.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember noauth <a...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> saying something like:
Overdone barf-making tinkering. The whole point of HDR is to restore, or at least synthesise, what was lost. Not to create alien landscapes, like the ones inhabited by many 'togs now.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:58:45 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote: > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > drugs began to take hold. I remember noauth > <a...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> saying something like:
> Overdone barf-making tinkering. > The whole point of HDR is to restore, or at least synthesise, what was > lost. Not to create alien landscapes, like the ones inhabited by many > 'togs now.
Exactly. Abuse of HDR-imaging and tonemapping is bad, very bad. Almost as bad as using a 'funny' three-line attribution at the top of your post, you hypocrite.
That looks like too much to me. It is difficult to do effectively. What I usually do is regular adjustments in Adobe Lightroom, which frankly turn out pretty crappy most of the time, especially if you zoom in & see the freaky halos that result from their fill light, highlight recovery, etc. Here's an example from today that doesn't show those defcts but does have a certain lack of punch I often see with this approach to post-processing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4076733670/ That's not to say it can't be used to good effect, just that it is very difficult, or rare that the occasion presents itself, I don't know.
The sky is slightly overdone, perhaps. But it's a good effort anyway. I'd try to get rid of the noise in the sky, which increased a lot along with the contrast.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Robert Spanjaard <spamt...@arumes.com> saying something like:
>Almost as bad as using a 'funny' three-line attribution at the top of >your post, you hypocrite.
|
