I like the Moosification of the foreground except that I don't think it
matches the sky. The foreground seems too bright for the darker sky to
have produced such light.
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/23/2014 12:41 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 2/13/2014 2:41 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I see I'm a few days late to the party here but I would also suggest
>> something in between... put the two on different layers and, as Moose
>> often says, use the opacity slider until you get what you want.
>
> Not this time. :-) I'm not a fan of HDR. It was originally developed to
> compensate for limited DR in cameras and film.
>
> It can be useful for that, but I usually find that simply selecting the one
> shot where the histogram just kisses the top
> and working with that gives excellent results. This scene, for example isn't
> beyond the DR of the camera.
>
> HDR quickly became another alt process to add unnatural, sometimes
> artistically successful qualities.
>
> And, as here, it's sometimes used to add oomph to a scene, while trying not
> to look too unnatural. I have no objection
> to that goal, but HDR is generally just not very good at it. I find
> conventional processing of one properly exposed
> frame can do a better job.
>
> Here, for example, as already mentioned, it's done a poor job of the far
> distance. It's done a great job, in the first
> one, with the foreground, but the middle distance is flat and unsaturated by
> comparison.
>
> I think this accomplishes the goal better than the HDR.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/PetrognanoOlives.htm>
>
> Exactly the same thing could be done from one frame. In practice, 'twere
> mine, I wouldn't go quite so far. :-)
>
> N.D.R. Moose
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|