The first two images here are HDR images of "my type".
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/Barnstable_2008/>
They're built from about 8 exposures 1 stop apart. I think they're
pretty close to what I could see with my eye but the camera couldn't.
On exposures where the sky showed a modest amount of color the
foreground was almost completely black. When the foreground had some
detail the sky was completely blown.
I like the way PhotoShop HDR works now that I understand it. The
resultant 32 bit image has so much range that you can only view it in
brightness "slices" since there's no way for the monitor to reproduce it
let alone a print.
Chuck Norcutt
Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> This is how I feel about most of the HDR images I see. Very few people
> are able to just use the effect to subtly widen the dynamic range.
> Most go way overboard, and the images scream: look, I am good at
> Photoshop!
>
> Nathan
>
> Nathan Wajsman
> Alicante, Spain
> http://www.frozenlight.eu
> http://www.greatpix.eu
> http://www.nathanfoto.com
>
> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
>
>
>
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Moose wrote:
>
>> It seems some folks think HDR is a synonym for hopping it up until it
>> hurts ones eyeballs. ;-)
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1653 - Release Date: 9/5/2008
> 6:57 AM
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|