Church HDR

[ANDS!]

The color is most definitely off in that photo, which to me is a problem more than anything else. Snow is most definitely NOT blue.

 

[Johnboy2978]

Nicely done. As noted above, a well done HDR should, IMO, look like a nicely exposed single image. The cartoony look only takes what could've been a nice photo and turns it to rubbish. As with other things in life, less is more.

 

[jwsciontc]

Didn't buy them, they were a gift from mother nature. And please don't tell me I am going to have to explain exposure. I'll make this easy. Camera sensors and film can not adjust to seens like our eyes with the help of our brain.

I really didn't think I needed to explain how eyesight works, but your brain plays a big part. Think white balance.

If you need HDR to see clearly, you have a medical condition and should consult an opthamologist.

Sorry Mgw189, I know this is not what you wanted but what else can we expect.

As far as the tilt goes, I know you know that is an easy fix. I just messing around with its age.

-Nick

it is not nearly as easy to see something in real life as HDR as you make it seem. If you can see this in real life, youre gifted:

you may be able to think you know what a scene will look like if it was HDR'd but looking at a scene, it isnt close to this the sarcasm isnt really appreciated either

 

[ANDS!]

A true HDR photo would have exposed that snow properly. It isn't. Im confused on the anti-Thats-Not-HDR sentiment going on here.

And of course that image has been tone-mapped. Otherwise it would not look like that.

 

[Mgw189]

A true HDR photo would have exposed that snow properly. It isn't. Im confused on the anti-Thats-Not-HDR sentiment going on here.

And of course that image has been tone-mapped. Otherwise it would not look like that.

Well to be honest this is my 4th or 5th HDR I have ever done. I still need to fine tune some things in working with the pictures. The white balance is off I can see that now. I was using a polarizing filter although I am not sure that is really the issue with the color of the snow.

 

[dtornabene1]

The color is most definitely off in that photo, which to me is a problem more than anything else. Snow is most definitely NOT blue.

No, but it can be yellow!

it is not nearly as easy to see something in real life as HDR as you make it seem. If you can see this in real life, youre gifted:

you may be able to think you know what a scene will look like if it was HDR'd but looking at a scene, it isnt close to this the sarcasm isnt really appreciated either

I can't see this in "real life" because it does not exist. Sorry, while I think it's a great photograh (no sarcasm, I really like it), the pp is very obvious. There was an article written in Popular Photography about 1 1/2 years ago (I would reference but honestly can't remember the particular issue), in which HDR is full explained.

The interesting part of the article is the subject matter in which the HDR image was created. It was of a basillica in Italy. There is no camera in the world that can look to the insides of a basillica and recreate what we see.

Here is a great guide for anyone looking to do HDR:

How to Create High Dynamic Range Images - - PopPhotoSeptember 2006

And, sarcasim is who I am, so no appologies for that.

A true HDR photo would have exposed that snow properly. It isn't. Im confused on the anti-Thats-Not-HDR sentiment going on here.

And of course that image has been tone-mapped. Otherwise it would not look like that.

You hit the nail on the head. Too many people believe HDR means "really cool photograph that can't be created any other way". Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As a mater-of-fact, HDR has been around long before the days of digital, hence exposure bracketing in film cameras.

I couldn't agree with you more.

-Nick

Here is an article I read last summer from Sutterbug:

http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/software_computers/0308unlocking/index.html