If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
"Paul Furman" wrote in message t... Beach Bum wrote: "Draco" wrote in message (http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/clived...144856-HDR.jpg) is quite nice. Yet something about is disturbing. I don't know if it is the perspective or the shadow detail or the over all exposure. It's the freaky sky that doesn't look real. Reminds me of these old colorized stereo vision photos I saw at my grandmother's place. Agreed about the sky but otherwise a spectacular shot and great use of HDR. It may have just been a freaky beautiful sky though a little less saturation would fix that right up. Otherwise it looks natural to me. It looks like a painting to me. - Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like paintings, and have a number of them hanging in my house. It is a very nice shot, but it still looks like a painting...... |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
William Graham wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message Beach Bum wrote: "Draco" wrote in message (http://galleries.oomz.net/pub/clived...144856-HDR.jpg) is quite nice. Yet something about is disturbing. I don't know if it is the perspective or the shadow detail or the over all exposure. It's the freaky sky that doesn't look real. Reminds me of these old colorized stereo vision photos I saw at my grandmother's place. Agreed about the sky but otherwise a spectacular shot and great use of HDR. It may have just been a freaky beautiful sky though a little less saturation would fix that right up. Otherwise it looks natural to me. It looks like a painting to me. - Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like paintings, and have a number of them hanging in my house. It is a very nice shot, but it still looks like a painting...... That's a good thing. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
"Scott W" wrote: Matt Clara wrote: Digital is great, because the images are perfect as cheap throw aways. Some shots are good, but their quality isn't what they could be if they were medium or large format. So, yeah, for me, digital has replaced my snap shooting, but for anything serious, it's medium or large-format. Perhaps a digital photo can have much higher quality that you are aware of. This photo was taken with a Rebel 350D and the cheap 50mm lens, the 1.8 one. Cost of the camera and lens together is about $650. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/high_compressed.jpg 8.4 MB. I don't believe a 6 x 9 camera can match this image. Note this image has been compressed a lot but still you can get the idea of what is posible with a digital camera. More than compression, what's a problem there is the obscenely excessive oversharpening. Sheesh, your halos are multiple pixels wide. Presumably that's one of your composites. But there's no problem doing composites with film either. I've done single-row panoramas with 6x7, and since 6x7 scanned at 2200 ppi (actually, scanned at 4000 ppi and downsampled to 2200 ppi) gives pixel-level detail about equal to digital, one frame is 28MP (I think this is about right: 6x7 nails the detail that the 5D just begins to fail to capture). Stitching six 28MP images together would be a lot of pixels, and not a lot of trouble. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
Dave Martindale wrote:
writes: I wanted to make certain that is what he had in mind, because when he states, "converting an HDR image into an 8-bit pc image renders a rather washed out and grey result," his statement makes no sense. It makes sense if you assume, like I do, that "8 bit" means 8 bits per channel. That could be 8 bits total in a greyscale image, 24 bits total for RGB, or 32 bits total for RGBA - they're all 8 bit images. I understand you are referring to 8-bits per channel. That does not explain how someone can claim that images that have 8-bits per channel (total of 24 bits per pixel) are "rather washed out and grey." In particular, where do you get grey out of neon? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
Annika1980 wrote:
Mardon, you're photo is probably the best implementation of HDR that I've yet seen. Oh, I don't know... it seems cliche. http://members.aol.com/pooua/Bright_...ight_Light.wmv |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
wrote:
In message .com, wrote: Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless days: http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg You need to clean your sensor, I think it was actually my lenses that had water spots on them. At least, that is what I am hoping. and learn to expose to the right. As opposed to the left? There is no reason to under-expose an image in that kind of lighting. If that image were under-exposed, you would not be able to see the facial features of the statue. If it were over-exposed, you would not be able to see most of the background detail. A normal photograph cannot capture both the detail of the statue's face and the background details of the fountain, the traffic and the stores. But, the fact remains, the photograph is not under-exposed. Oh, and would it have killed you to acknowledge that I captured distinct water drops in the air in an HDR image? You know that movement does not normally work well in an HDR image. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
My Early Experiments in HDR
wrote:
wrote: In message .com, wrote: Nice. But, I live in Texas, where the sun is often bright on cloudless days: http://members.aol.com/pooua/HDR/HDR...-001_small.jpg You need to clean your sensor, I think it was actually my lenses that had water spots on them. At least, that is what I am hoping. It's dust on your sensor. You can get rid of 99% of it with just a blower. and learn to expose to the right. As opposed to the left? Yes, right is generally the opposite of left. There is no reason to under-expose an image in that kind of lighting. If that image were under-exposed, you would not be able to see the facial features of the statue. If it were over-exposed, you would not be able to see most of the background detail. A normal photograph cannot capture both the detail of the statue's face and the background details of the fountain, the traffic and the stores. But, the fact remains, the photograph is not under-exposed. Oh, and would it have killed you to acknowledge that I captured distinct water drops in the air in an HDR image? You know that movement does not normally work well in an HDR image. Wooohooo! Greg -- "All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My Early Experiments in HDR | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 114 | June 2nd 06 08:53 PM |
Vintage Manual Photography early 1900s FA | JaneyP | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 4th 05 12:14 AM |
FA Early Miranda Stuff, Collectible condition | HMeier9160 | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 2nd 04 01:55 PM |
FA Early Miranda | HMeier9160 | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | April 2nd 04 01:54 PM |
Wanted to buy - Leica early chrome 35 Summilux + black M4 | Kelly | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 16th 03 05:58 AM |