Black and Whites

[cpeay]

 

[sleist]

I like the first better than the second, but they both suffer from apparent over sharpening/structure. It works for the bridge, but the trees in number one, and the hillside in the background of the second shot suffer from the effect - in my opinion.
The composition of the first shot is much better than the second. I would haved like to have had less of an acute angle with respect to the train, but I'm not sure how that would have impacted the view of the hills in the background.

 

[amolitor]

These have been smashed so hard that the light is almost completely missing.

Is the bridge in the first one in sunlight or shadow? I can't tell. I *think* it's in the sunlight, but the image is so heavily tonemapped that it's hard to tell what light, if any, is falling on it. The second one has pretty much the same issue -- where is the sun? What's shade and what isn't? They both look a fair bit like very long exposure night shots, where the apparent light is so diffuse that it has no direction, and appears to be coming from everywhere.

This is certainly a look, and a lot of people seem to like it. My theory is that this is how video games are lit and therefore we see it a lot, and therefore it's affecting what is perceived as 'normal'.

I don't like it, though.

 

[cpeay]

I like the first better than the second, but they both suffer from apparent over sharpening/structure. It works for the bridge, but the trees in number one, and the hillside in the background of the second shot suffer from the effect - in my opinion.
The composition of the first shot is much better than the second. I would haved like to have had less of an acute angle with respect to the train, but I'm not sure how that would have impacted the view of the hills in the background.

This is what happens when I decide to edit pictures at 4:00 am.

 

[Light Guru]

It looks like you just took extremely over processed HDR photos and turned them black and white.

 

[Ragenth]

How's it?..

 

[Derrel]

These have been smashed so hard that the light is almost completely missing.

Is the bridge in the first one in sunlight or shadow? I can't tell. I *think* it's in the sunlight, but the image is so heavily tonemapped that it's hard to tell what light, if any, is falling on it. The second one has pretty much the same issue -- where is the sun? What's shade and what isn't? They both look a fair bit like very long exposure night shots, where the apparent light is so diffuse that it has no direction, and appears to be coming from everywhere.

This is certainly a look, and a lot of people seem to like it. My theory is that this is how video games are lit and therefore we see it a lot, and therefore it's affecting what is perceived as 'normal'.

I don't like it, though.

Some very interesting points of view in this guy's post. This whole "video games" and "lighting from outta' nowhere" concept that amolitor talks about now and again...I think some of you HDR afficionados might do well to think about that,long and hard. Because so,so many times when I open a post with an HDR-type image or two or three, I am treated to photos that have this same weird, inorganic, wildly nutty lighting effect. I just do not "get" how this look has come to be so popular--except perhaps it's one of those photographic fads that's been fueled by Flickr and 500pix, where people are much more concerned or fascinated or obsessed with "the method" or "the technique" than they are about any kind of photographic result, or quality, or worthiness...just like, "Look at this photo! I used multiple exposures and PhotoMatix,and isn't it cool!" I'm not trying to paint these two photos with that brush...not trying to call these unworthy pictures, but just making the observation that I do not get what the hell you're trying to accomplish here...