• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's Unfair...

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
it'd be neat to see what the original looked like (in reference to the second link).

I'm guessing there is more than 1 original for each, since many of those have a distinctly HDR look to them
 
I think almost all of them are High Dynamic Range HDR photos. Meaning he takes more than one shot, bracketed for exposure (light, normal, dark) and then combines them using photoshop or some similar program.

Some people love them. I admit they are amazing, but I am not sure I like them better than regular photos.
 
Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Some people love them. I admit they are amazing, but I am not sure I like them better than regular photos.

Yeah, the "overcooked" HDR's can be very annoying. I generally prefer photos that use HDR as a technique to retain detail in highlights and shadows, and that's about it.

The irony: for years, the ultimate goal in movie CGI was to make CGI effects look totally real and natural. Now, there's great effort on the part of some photogs to make natural photos look CGI.
 
Don't confuse regular HDR with properly blended photographs with different exposure levels. I think HDR is the worst thing to happen to modern photography, but I'm a big fan of manually blending two or more exposure for the desired effect. You have very little control of an HDR image but if you blend manually you retain the control to give full attention to which parts of the image should be adjusted.

Sure, it's more time consuming, but the results are nearly always much nicer.
 
Back
Top