Any avid photographers in here? *cough*Kiwi*cough* I'm trying to learn tone-mapping on high dynamic range images. Any software package suggestions? A friend of mine suggested Photomatix Pro but I'm curious what's better.
Photography stuffs
- Thread starter Sarcasmo
- Start date
My goal is to take vibrant landscape pics. I'm constantly let down by how generic my photos turn out. They lack depth and feeling. Very blah. No oomph in the color. But I don't want the fakeness that HDR often brings. I'd like to learn to do it well.
Also, are there noticeable differences between using three exposures as opposed to say, 5 or 6? Is more always better? Are satisfactory results obtainable from a single exposure?
Also, are there noticeable differences between using three exposures as opposed to say, 5 or 6? Is more always better? Are satisfactory results obtainable from a single exposure?
Last edited:
I have to have a camera with me at all times because you never know when you might stumble upon something like clown sex in the woods.
I have a Nikon S60 that I take when out with the dog. It's my point-and-shoot camera. I'm going to acquire a nice DSLR soon, which would be where the bulk of my HDR work comes from. As for why...because I, uh, have an interest in it. Is that a trick question? I love photography.
I have a Nikon S60 that I take when out with the dog. It's my point-and-shoot camera. I'm going to acquire a nice DSLR soon, which would be where the bulk of my HDR work comes from. As for why...because I, uh, have an interest in it. Is that a trick question? I love photography.
I thought everyone got into photography in the hopes of working in the world of nude modeling at some point?
Well I ask because HDR is a creative tool, but shouldn't be used to try and make crappy pictures better. If you aren't using your manual settings and proper composition then I suggest taking a photo course instead of cheating around and using HDR.
He'll I can teach you via IM courses for pennies a day.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
I just want my pics to be better than your pics.
Here's one I took of a roof in New Mexico. Generic point-and-shoot camera (Kodak, I think) with no touch ups or post processing. Obviously.
My greatest problem is framing interesting shots. I'm constantly let down by what looked great with my eye but lousy on my screen.
Judging by the shot you are using auto mode, right? There are blow-outs in your highlights and harsh black shadows which you can control better in manual mode.
But then art is in the eye of the beholder so maybe you meant for that to happen.
Plus you are your worst critic. It's a pretty good shot that could use little tweaking. Also finding the most interesting shot usually means getting an angle most people don't see. Climb up on the roof next time.
But then art is in the eye of the beholder so maybe you meant for that to happen.
Plus you are your worst critic. It's a pretty good shot that could use little tweaking. Also finding the most interesting shot usually means getting an angle most people don't see. Climb up on the roof next time.
