HDR \o/

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 16 Oct 2006 at 16:30

Me personally felt you were asking for feedback regarding the HDR as that was the title of the thread. Sorry for lack of critic.

divine` · 16 Oct 2006 at 16:47

xolotl said:
The noise, while the equipment could have been the limiting factor in this I think its down to the HDR process, looking at the noise in the bottom right corner is very distracting, the sand seems to emphasise it even more.

The saturation of this photo is interesting, it really adds to the impact and make gives it the wow factor, but as with most HDr photos it doesn't quite look real. Its a lot better than some HDRs I have seen but I'm still not convinced about how great HDR is.

The noise will be because it is generated from one RAW with the exposure changed in RAWShooter, unfortunate side effect of using one RAW but the three I took at the time didn't align properly.

I don't HDR is meant to look 'real' else it wouldn't serve much purpose, it's very much like IR photography in a way, it can look nice but it won't be a realistic interpretation of the scene as it would be viewed in real life.

cyKey · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:34

xolotl said:
...but I'm still not convinced about how great HDR is.

O rly?

If I was to be harsh I'd say some areas were too dark and need some dodging to be brought out. I can't say I noticed the noise in it. Though there is some nice grain in the sand

edgaruy1980 · 17 Oct 2006 at 09:16

It's less hassle to get a FUJI S3 or S5, which can caapture about 400% more of HDR.

cyKey · 17 Oct 2006 at 09:18

edgaruy1980 said:
It's less hassle to get a FUJI S3 or S5, which can caapture about 400% more of HDR.

Huh?

hoodmeister · 17 Oct 2006 at 09:20

I think what he means is that the Fuji S3 pro // S5 pro have a spot more dynamic range than most dSLR's. Nowhere near 400% though :eek:

cyKey · 17 Oct 2006 at 09:25

hoodmeister said:
I think what he means is that the Fuji S3 pro // S5 pro have a spot more dynamic range than most dSLR's. Nowhere near 400% though

Ahhhhh.