corsair wrote:its not only impossible for his POS camera to capture, its also an impossible reality.
Reality has a much higher contrast than most pictures show...especially in moving photography (movies).
It's funny...alot of games release screenshots of low contrast "panoramas" or close-up scenes which are completely washed out and most people will think,"Hey...that looks real" but those people have never actually taken a moment to see the high contrast in natural light.
I must ask though...if you guys are cheating by taking multiple exposures just to put it together in Photoshop....why the fuck did you buy an expensive camera when multiple exposures - and the editing power of Photoshop - can produce good pictures from an average point and shoot?
GFY: Ofcourse it has, reality isnt bound to the 0 to 1 limit like digital pictures are. Isn't that the whole point of hdr anyway?
About the last bit you wrote. Surely you meant that single exposure combined with photoshop can produce good pictures... quasi-typo? o_O
Doombrain: Right, I may stated that a bit too absolute. That aside, there's absolutely no need to have any black in that photograph. Personaly, I think auto contrast/levels/colors in PS already creates a better picture than the edit you posted. The only problem then is that there's shitloads of blue on the leaves. Substitute colors and warm those up and that should make a good final picture.
Phoenix: you killed the colour of the thin tree bark closest to you. It's probably grey-greenish in the real, not brown. Most trees aren't that brown at all, contrary to what many people would say.
All I'm saying is that I've seriously considered buying a really good camera based on the picts you guys have posted and it's more than a disappointment to know that your cameras didn't give you those picts...you had to tweak them. So...I'm asking why I should bother spending the money when I can spend it on a ski trip instead.
corsair wrote:GFY: Ofcourse it has, reality isnt bound to the 0 to 1 limit like digital pictures are. Isn't that the whole point of hdr anyway?
About the last bit you wrote. Surely you meant that single exposure combined with photoshop can produce good pictures... quasi-typo? o_O
Doombrain: Right, I may stated that a bit too absolute. That aside, there's absolutely no need to have any black in that photograph. Personaly, I think auto contrast/levels/colors in PS already creates a better picture than the edit you posted. The only problem then is that there's shitloads of blue on the leaves. Substitute colors and warm those up and that should make a good final picture.
Phoenix: you killed the colour of the thin tree bark closest to you. It's probably grey-greenish in the real, not brown. Most trees aren't that brown at all, contrary to what many people would say.
Maybe you missed the bit "relative".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Doombrain wrote:I just made it look 0-0-0 black and 255-255-255, which is impossible for your POS camera to capture.
So you're lying.
you sure about that?
here's yours:
Doombrain wrote:
and here's the original, stitched from three separate pictures with autopano, auto-cropped, reduced to the same size and with the same amount of sharpening you used (but without the filtered & blurred layers on the one i first posted):
All I'm saying is that I've seriously considered buying a really good camera based on the picts you guys have posted and it's more than a disappointment to know that your cameras didn't give you those picts...you had to tweak them. So...I'm asking why I should bother spending the money when I can spend it on a ski trip instead.
*reads link*
That's true in some degree, but it's very relative, most of my "good" shots look good straight from the camera, but I just tweak them a bit.
This shot for example is straight from the camera with no post-processing at all. There is no fucking way you'll get that with a point and shoot.
This shot was taken with a Canon 400D (which I still use) and a EF 50mm 1.8 lens, total costs around $660. So in my defence, a DSLR is worth every single penny IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE IT.
I guess it's a difference of "hey that picture looks neat" vs "yeah I can see he put some effort into processing that"
I consider myself a pretty technical person, but I'd rather just look at a picture of something, that has some overall appeal, than look at a picture of something that looks very little like I would have seen it had I been there, and try to "appreciate" what's been done to make it look that way.
You kids make me smile about Out of cam and post processes.
Fact is, no cam, P&S or DSLR or Film, does not stand alone. There is post processing involved in all of them. Just depends on what you think you want to see, or what you want others to see.
I myself post process to what I saw. I don't care if I under exposed a tad, as I know I can bring the levels up to where I saw it.
I do care when I over expose cause blown highlights can not be subdued.
And Doombrain, stop being so Mr Perfect. While your last photo was not only a surprise to see, with the extended exposure, it was lacking in a little bit of contrast. You sir also had some blown high lites.
This is a picture sharing thread. We all appreciate critique, but theres no need to try to shut us down for your "I'm Better Than You" attitude.
All I'm saying is that I've seriously considered buying a really good camera based on the picts you guys have posted and it's more than a disappointment to know that your cameras didn't give you those picts...you had to tweak them. So...I'm asking why I should bother spending the money when I can spend it on a ski trip instead.
*reads link*
It seemed to me that you were just trolling. Mac and Form nailed it already, some photos are good already and others need some extra contrast or maybe other post-processing.
You could see it as processing digital negatives. I'd spend money on a good camera with good lenses and bring it with me on a ski trip.
p.s. here's a photo without any processing. The timing and light was right.
ForM wrote:You kids make me smile about Out of cam and post processes.
Fact is, no cam, P&S or DSLR or Film, does not stand alone. There is post processing involved in all of them. Just depends on what you think you want to see, or what you want others to see.
I myself post process to what I saw. I don't care if I under exposed a tad, as I know I can bring the levels up to where I saw it.
I do care when I over expose cause blown highlights can not be subdued.
And Doombrain, stop being so Mr Perfect. While your last photo was not only a surprise to see, with the extended exposure, it was lacking in a little bit of contrast. You sir also had some blown high lites.
This is a picture sharing thread. We all appreciate critique, but theres no need to try to shut us down for your "I'm Better Than You" attitude.
Give the new kids a break.
yeah, on like 1% of the image, it was a very bright day. you still upset with me?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
