What's new

Building 11

It's not about discussing or arguing on every comment or critique you get y'know??
People talk, comment and critique... Which is why you uploaded this. So: Take it or leave it.

Thanks. How come this doesn't look good with HDR? I thought it looked pretty awesome. What makes a photo deserve or not deserve HDR??
Just curious, how come?
Haha, thanks, but howcome it doesn't look good with HDR? How is it plain?
But isn't it worth sometimes capturing the simpler things?
 
Cute quirky composition , not overly exciting. Nice HDR process though not a TON gained from it. Decent overall, but not anything id print and hang on the wall.
 
DGMPhotography said:
But isn't it worth sometimes capturing the simpler things?

it can be but in HDR you're trying to expose the hidden details in all ranges

not trying to capture simple things maybe you like the look of tone mapping which is not the same thing of HDR it's just part of the process

Okay, you have a point. I like the look of tone mapping. However, this is indeed HDR- I took 3 exposures and everything. So in this case, I like the look of the tone mapping in this HDR. But I can't just call it tone mapping, because it is indeed HDR, right?
 
Probably loose the HDR or tune it down in the sky... But I really like this photo! You achieved perfect balance between symmetry and just the right amount of assymetry! :thumbup:

Thanks. How come this doesn't look good with HDR? I thought it looked pretty awesome. What makes a photo deserve or not deserve HDR??
I don't know, it's just a matter of personal taste I think. But you basically want to do HDR when the camera is unable to capture the whole dynamic range in front of you... Again, I don't much about HDR and never tried it myself.
The picture is good and I like it a lot! Perfect balance! But the sky is kinda weird to me

Gotcha. Well as that1guy said, I enjoy the look of tone mapped images, so everything about this, the color and all, I like. But thanks! And you should try HDR!!! xD
 
Thanks. How come this doesn't look good with HDR? I thought it looked pretty awesome. What makes a photo deserve or not deserve HDR??
I don't know, it's just a matter of personal taste I think. But you basically want to do HDR when the camera is unable to capture the whole dynamic range in front of you... Again, I don't much about HDR and never tried it myself.
The picture is good and I like it a lot! Perfect balance! But the sky is kinda weird to me

Gotcha. Well as that1guy said, I enjoy the look of tone mapped images, so everything about this, the color and all, I like. But thanks! And you should try HDR!!! xD

All in due time haha... For now I'm trying to learn how to do timelapses :)
 
I don't know, it's just a matter of personal taste I think. But you basically want to do HDR when the camera is unable to capture the whole dynamic range in front of you... Again, I don't much about HDR and never tried it myself.
The picture is good and I like it a lot! Perfect balance! But the sky is kinda weird to me

Gotcha. Well as that1guy said, I enjoy the look of tone mapped images, so everything about this, the color and all, I like. But thanks! And you should try HDR!!! xD

All in due time haha... For now I'm trying to learn how to do timelapses :)

my next adventure! :D
 
I think the 'fair queen' mentioned in the 'fair queen ball' will disappoint.

Hehe.. Well, I'd go to see the FAIR QUEEN. I've always been rather fond of the kind of girls that participate in rural fairs. :blushing:

Besides the apocalyptic sky, I like this photo. It very nicely conveys a sense of "afternoon at the county fair" and country charm. I'd consider cropping the red truck and the telephone pole and see if that makes any difference in impact.
 
I think the 'fair queen' mentioned in the 'fair queen ball' will disappoint.

Hehe.. Well, I'd go to see the FAIR QUEEN. I've always been rather fond of the kind of girls that participate in rural fairs. :blushing:

Besides the apocalyptic sky, I like this photo. It very nicely conveys a sense of "afternoon at the county fair" and country charm. I'd consider cropping the red truck and the telephone pole and see if that makes any difference in impact.

Ha, well thanks! As for cropping, I left it that way on purpose. Like Lizardking said, I think this is just the right balance of both symmetry and asymmetry.
 
my next adventure! :D

Well then prepare yourself for A LOT of time of PP. But it's really nice. I'm liking it a lot!

What exactly is time lapsing? Like the stuff you can do with moving stars or whatever??

Try Wikipedia or YouTube and you'll see for yourself, which will be 10 times better than any explanation we can give you here... But it's those videos in high speed that show a large period of time, usually in HD... and they look pretty cool, but you have to take hundreds of exposures and then do some PP on all that... But it's really interesting and entertaining... Although really time consuming :)

This is one of the best I've seen: Vancouver City - YouTube
 
Well then prepare yourself for A LOT of time of PP. But it's really nice. I'm liking it a lot!

What exactly is time lapsing? Like the stuff you can do with moving stars or whatever??

Try Wikipedia or YouTube and you'll see for yourself, which will be 10 times better than any explanation we can give you here... But it's those videos in high speed that show a large period of time, usually in HD... and they look pretty cool, but you have to take hundreds of exposures and then do some PP on all that... But it's really interesting and entertaining... Although really time consuming :)

This is one of the best I've seen: Vancouver City - YouTube

PP= Powerpoint? I have a question, how come do this instead of taking a video? I know it looks different but what's the significance?
 
What exactly is time lapsing? Like the stuff you can do with moving stars or whatever??

Try Wikipedia or YouTube and you'll see for yourself, which will be 10 times better than any explanation we can give you here... But it's those videos in high speed that show a large period of time, usually in HD... and they look pretty cool, but you have to take hundreds of exposures and then do some PP on all that... But it's really interesting and entertaining... Although really time consuming :)

This is one of the best I've seen: Vancouver City - YouTube

PP= Powerpoint? I have a question, how come do this instead of taking a video? I know it looks different but what's the significance?

PP = Post-Processing.

And for the second question, I'm doing it with pictures because now I'm more into photography and less into video. But anyway, this will explain it way better than I can:

What is best way to capture timelapse; with stills or video 'sped up'?
There are advantages/disadvantages to both methods so being aware of the issues going in can save you a lot of headaches down the road. Today, the majority of timelapse enthusiasts probably use digital single lens reflex cameras (DSLR). Let's break it down:

Stills Pro:
-Ability to capture resolution far above final output. In other words if you're using a 10mp+ camera and your looking for 1080p you have lots of resolution to spare.
-Ability to capture RAW images (filenames ending in .CR2, .NEF etc.). The same holds true in timelapse as in traditional digital photography, capturing RAW data will give you the most flexibility in post but can come at storage and speed cost.
-Ability to adjust ALL settings. 99% of still cameras give you full creative control over exposure, aperture, ISO, white balance, and such. Many video cameras do not.
-Ability to see each shot displayed in the LCD - useful to monitor exposure and progress of motion.
-If you have a source resolution much higher than your final video output resolution, you can add pan and zoom effects within the frame in post production and not lose any video resolution. Your capture resolution should be as high as possible for this to look smooth and avoid artifacts.

Stills Con:
-Speed, many times you can't get under 2-3 seconds per shot on a DSLR shooting RAW. You can shift to JPG for to get better speed (say even 2-3 FPS, which many cameras can do consistently with the shutter 'held down') but make sure you get your white balance correct and locked down. Also it's worth mentioning, when shooting RAW allow the camera's buffer to clear before the next shot! You may get missed frames if not.
-Time drain in post, shooting RAW can mean some serious time and computer resources in the post process. Again, JPG can speed things up but if you want ULTIMATE quality, remember to budget the time, memory and CPU.

Video Pro:
-Easy! not much need to consider a lot. Make sure you've got settings locked to taste, power to last, press the REC button and chillax.
-Tape is in the past! most cams record direct to chip or drive now so it's easy to transfer directly into your timeline.
-FAST! Drop that file into the timeline, speed it up and voila timelapse.

Video Con:
-Not much flexibility, once it's recorded you can't do as much in post, for example unlike hi-res stills the pan-and-scan aka 'the Ken Burns effect is out of the question. So you pretty much have to get it right while shooting, color correct and live with it.
-Limited duration. Fill that memory and you're done. Some cams will simply stop recording after x amount of time.
-Power consumption. In general a running video capture will consume more power than stills.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom