Prev: New archive DVDs...
Next: [review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby
From: Rich on 20 Nov 2009 15:21
On Nov 19, 3:48 am, bucky3 <buc...(a)mail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  We keep hearing as responses that HDR "should" look good if it's done
> > properly, and yet we see so few examples of this.
> > HDR is to digital imaging what Velvia is to film-only worse.
>
> Maybe if HDR is done properly, you don't realize it's HDR.  I found
> these examples that showed HDR results with different settings
> (natural and surreal):
>
> http://www.vanilladays.com/hdr-guide/#exampleshttp://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/HDR_ps/compare.jpg
>
> I compare HDR to AutoTune. When AutoTune's done subtly, you won't
> notice it. But people love to use AutoTune on its extreme settings for
> the effect (which get old really fast).

What you say is true! But few are achieving it! I'm pretty sure
buildings aren't surrounded by glows (looks like a bad film print
dodge job) and clouds except at sunset and dawn aren't pink!!
From: Teraposa Lunodas on 24 Nov 2009 07:28
I think the reason that they look like paintings is because your eye
accommodates to the light directly where you are looking, and so if
there is differential illumination of a scene, your eye accommodates
directly to what you are looking at, and so areas with lower
illumination will appear darker with less detail. With an HDR photo,
all areas start to appear as they would if your eyes were accommodated
to all areas simultaneously, thus creating an artificial appearance.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: New archive DVDs...
Next: [review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby