Page 52 of 284

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:32 am
by Dave
3.. the windows on the first some work.. I didn't have enough samples

I had a set of five of the first, but some dickhead turned off the lights on the second floor just before 4 minute exposure and it won't do the HDR right :/

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:04 am
by MKJ
2nd one is surreal. fun :icon14:

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:24 am
by PhoeniX
There's some strange green/purple spots on the stairs :o.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:29 am
by Doombrain
HDR fucking sucks. can't wait until people forget about it

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:37 am
by cumpooter
of course..

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:45 am
by FanaticX
PhoeniX wrote:There's some strange green/purple spots on the stairs :o.
That is tiny bit of lens flare from the bright street lamps.

Re B&W tones, Dave's right. I love using quadtones for my B&Ws.

HDR works great for somethings and horribly for others. Most landscape photographers I know love it.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:49 am
by FanaticX
Here's a 2 minute exposure around midnight shooting in Tungsten mode and then tweaked in photoshop. It turned out almost like a painting...

Image

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:50 am
by MKJ
could you post the original?
wanna see how much of that was tweaked..

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:54 am
by Doombrain
cumpooter wrote:of course..
bitter.

TNF, would you mind editing out Hates trolling please? He's doing his best to ruin this topic. I think he's bitterly upset.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:14 pm
by FanaticX
Resized uncropped original with dirty sensor and all.

Image


Edited

Image

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:14 pm
by Dave
Doombrain wrote:HDR fucking sucks. can't wait until people forget about it
It's because most people saturate the hell out of things and make them look worse than they were originally. It's good for compressing 14 stops of dynamic range into a photo instead of the usual 7 or 8.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:25 pm
by Dave
FanaticX wrote:
PhoeniX wrote:There's some strange green/purple spots on the stairs :o.
That is tiny bit of lens flare from the bright street lamps.

Re B&W tones, Dave's right. I love using quadtones for my B&Ws.

HDR works great for somethings and horribly for others. Most landscape photographers I know love it.
yeah, the color is mostly accurate. I had to manually white balance it, though, since there are two color temps of light. It was either make the steps greenish or add magenta and make the lower stairwell and building in the background too red. I don't like to edit regions of photos, so I don't do anything to color I don't apply to the entire photo.

The construction photo I posted might look surreal, but the original looks like that too. All the HDR process did is open up the shadows and compress the highlights so you can see what's in the windows. You'd never be able to do that with 8 stops of DR, but with 14 and 32-bit brightness levels, it's a little more practical.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:28 pm
by Dave
PhoeniX wrote:There's some strange green/purple spots on the stairs :o.
lol.. i thought you meant the greenish cast on the stairs. I didn't even notice the flare. I'm surprised there isn't more since I forgot the hood at home and that thing loves to flare when light hits it at just the right angle

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:42 pm
by Doombrain
Dave wrote:
Doombrain wrote:HDR fucking sucks. can't wait until people forget about it
It's because most people saturate the hell out of things and make them look worse than they were originally. It's good for compressing 14 stops of dynamic range into a photo instead of the usual 7 or 8.
It's not very, if almost ever, I see one i like.

Nice pic's X, as ever.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:47 pm
by FanaticX
Can't wait to get back home so I can get a new desktop and 30" display. Thinking about going the Dell route to save cost. Any idea if the Dell 30" or 24" are any good vs the Apple monitors? I know the Apple 30" looks sweet from staring at one of my friend's.

HDR will get used too once I get more processing speed :mad:

It's stupidly slow as is to even open a 20mb RAW file right now :mad: :mad:

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:50 pm
by Doombrain
mac pro ownT

re the dells. i don't realy know, we have the apples. i'm sure they're OK

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:57 pm
by FanaticX
I priced out the Mac Pro+monitor vs similar spec Dell+monitor and it's about $1000 more. I can get a nice TV for that price...

Plus, how hard or easy is it to get apple software off the web(torent)?

DB, you should try to get a hold of the Voigtlander 12mm lens for you R-D1. It's not that expensive and should provide you with hours of fun.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:09 pm
by Dave
Dell monitors are fine. If Apple drops a new Mac today I'm probably going to get it unless it's not that great, in which case I'll get the current model if I can find it cheaply

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:26 pm
by FanaticX
Well, a few more before I hit the sack.

Coastal life (+Men with nets)

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:39 pm
by Chupacabra
FanaticX wrote:Here's a 2 minute exposure around midnight shooting in Tungsten mode and then tweaked in photoshop. It turned out almost like a painting...

Image
nice CG

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:51 pm
by Don Carlos
2 min exposure?! hardcore!

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:41 pm
by 7zark7
FanaticX wrote:
Image
I LOVE this photo. Got one I can use as a wallpaper?

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:08 pm
by mac
if i recall right dell and apple use the same pannels in their 30" tfts.. so you can get the cheaper one..

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:13 am
by Dave
The next one of you cunts who make me have to prune this thread is going to get banned

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:22 am
by Dave
Moving on...

Image