Lens Flair

^^ By the fact that Ice hasn't been sick yet, I guess he agrees with me that you've done it pretty well. No, actually. I've changed my mind. Very well.
 
Shawn said:
This was supposed to be part of a panorama that didn't really pan out too well.

*pic*

This was my first hand at HDR, hopefully it's not too much?
Click to expand...

If you hadn't said it was HDR I wouldn't have guessed :)

Thomas93 said:
Ice - mine resized it staright away ?
Click to expand...

Just because the forum resizes doesn't mean you should upload that big a picture, we still have to download all of it before it resizes and if you have a slow connection that is murder.
 
Thomas93 said:
If I were taking the shot I would of let it get that little bit darker first, just so the lighting across the river really jumps out at you.
Click to expand...

I couldn't wait until it was any darker because that area closes at 10pm and being that its summer now its not totally dark by then on clear nights. :)

I think it'll be better if I go in the winter... it's pitch dark by 5pm and that means all the office buildings will have their lights on as well. I'm also still trying to get a decent pano of that too.


Speedtouch said:
^^ By the fact that Ice hasn't been sick yet, I guess he agrees with me that you've done it pretty well. No, actually. I've changed my mind. Very well.
Click to expand...

It's just Photomatix on default settings, except -5 for luminosity. I don't really know anything about that program.
 
Last edited:
You avoided the radioactive effect, which is good.

The whole point of HDR is to reduce the contrast closer to something the human brain sees the world (the human eye sees it like a digital camera, the brain interprets it the way we actually perceive it).

Up to step 8 it's good HDR, step 9 and onwards is crap.

http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/HDR_ps/hdr-ps.htm

Original 3 images:

https://pic.armedcats.net/i/ic/icebone/2009/05/26/HDR01.jpg

Good HDR:

https://pic.armedcats.net/i/ic/icebone/2009/05/26/alt.jpg

BAD HDR:

https://pic.armedcats.net/i/ic/icebone/2009/05/26/HDR10.jpg
 
epp_b said:
^ I'm used to seeing more display of movement from you, Alok. That car looks like it's parked (or maybe it is? :p)
Click to expand...


haha, it isn't :p That photo is party of a setup I made that fired successive shots that the judges used to check if the drivers picked up the precise line, so I had it freeze frame mode :)
 
Last edited:
IceBone said:
You avoided the radioactive effect, which is good.

The whole point of HDR is to reduce the contrast closer to something the human brain sees the world (the human eye sees it like a digital camera, the brain interprets it the way we actually perceive it).
Click to expand...
That's one possible point of HDR. As with any other tool or technique, it has more than one use. Thus, what's "good" and "bad" is strictly a matter of opinion.

Of course, my current leaning towards the artsy fartsy side of photography causes many to shun my photos. That's perfectly fine to be honest, I just wanted to state that I only suck a little bit radioactive HDR is the bee's knees.
 
Random shot of Douglas - I live a bit to the right at the bottom of the hill in the background

prospecthill.jpg
 
How long was that exposure? ~30sec-1min? I really like the colors you got from the sky. And I like the architectual/material abstract thing you are doing.

Dr_Q: Excellent horse photos!

Alex: The light-stars are a bit distracting. Also play with your contrast a bit, you could probably get some pop out of the sky and buildings.
 
More Alfa stuff
Alfa_Romoeo_Mi_To_in_Constanta_by_TDUFreak.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top