Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:33 pm
Your comment was deletedDoombrain wrote:lol, drugs.mjrpes wrote:EPSN1115.JPG !!saturn wrote:lol, you just dumped a million pics at flickr
Page 73 of 284
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:36 pm
LOL - not like it had any cursing in it.
You're not allowed to express any strong negative opinions.
You're not allowed to express any strong negative opinions.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:43 pm
lol, added againDave wrote:Your comment was deletedDoombrain wrote:lol, drugs.mjrpes wrote: EPSN1115.JPG !!
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:46 pm
it looks like it just had a high pass filter put over it
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:46 pm
BANT!
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:53 pm
hah.. true.. be careful not to get banned after you just purchased an account 
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:54 pm
why, is it that bad?
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:55 pm
lol, it's gone again
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:57 pm
dunno.. i don't know what their tolerance is.
You know what? I bet the guy with the pic ignored you, which is why your comments don't appear
You know what? I bet the guy with the pic ignored you, which is why your comments don't appear
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:58 pm
deleted again
who's deleting the comments?
who's deleting the comments?
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:06 pm
but fucking hell, it's not even HDR ffs. it's just shite.
christ, i know a few sites like that. post a pic with a border and a shitty flower, sign it and people kiss ass.
christ, i know a few sites like that. post a pic with a border and a shitty flower, sign it and people kiss ass.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:20 pm
heh, lets give it an ANTI-HDR award
p.s. I joined the anti-HDR group
p.p.s I also joined a Quality HDR group
p.s. I joined the anti-HDR group
p.p.s I also joined a Quality HDR group
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:23 pm
im no photobuff at all, but I don't see the fun of HDR.
guess its the cool thing to do. woo, HDR
guess its the cool thing to do. woo, HDR
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:25 pm
I just joined the HDR-MISUSE-BY-NEWBS-WITH-THEIR-NEW-XMAS-GIFT group :icon14:
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:27 pm
right, so who's with flickr?
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:31 pm
I think there are two ways with HDR:MKJ wrote:im no photobuff at all, but I don't see the fun of HDR.
guess its the cool thing to do. woo, HDR
1) Capture the high dynamic range of a scenery and create a photo that's greatly detailed but still focused on the subject itself
2) Use HDR to emphasize/exaggerate a scenery till it becomes some form of art. FX does a good job of that.
Don't turn it into a some kind of ugly, badly filtered photoshopjob
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:32 pm
FX, you, me (http://www.flickr.com/photos/quanle), macabre.......more?Doombrain wrote:right, so who's with flickr?
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:33 pm
right, fuck it.
how do i do a good tonemapped HDR? and i mean one with about 6-7 stops?
I'm going to give it ago.
how do i do a good tonemapped HDR? and i mean one with about 6-7 stops?
I'm going to give it ago.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:46 pm
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:48 pm
There are some tutorials around. I'm using Photomatix, but Photoshop CS 2 can do the trick too.
You can do so many tonemap settings, it really depends on what endresult you want. I mostly just juggle the sliders around in Photomatix till I get something I like. Then import it in iPhoto or Photoshop for some final post-processing.
You can do so many tonemap settings, it really depends on what endresult you want. I mostly just juggle the sliders around in Photomatix till I get something I like. Then import it in iPhoto or Photoshop for some final post-processing.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:52 pm
I thought FX posted his method (roughly) a few pages back?
At any rate, the photo Dave linked to is shit. It may technically be HDR, but the camera wasn't even on a tripod, and you can tell - even with the tiny cropped version he posted. You can't tone-map a photo that looks like drunk vision to start with.
I'm still baffled that he got so many good comments. O_o
At any rate, the photo Dave linked to is shit. It may technically be HDR, but the camera wasn't even on a tripod, and you can tell - even with the tiny cropped version he posted. You can't tone-map a photo that looks like drunk vision to start with.
I'm still baffled that he got so many good comments. O_o
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:52 pm
yeah, i had a look at that link. mostly masking out stuff etc.
worth doing 5 shots over 3?
worth doing 5 shots over 3?
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:56 pm
probably....you get more dynamic range in your final HDR photo.Doombrain wrote:yeah, i had a look at that link. mostly masking out stuff etc.
worth doing 5 shots over 3?
But if you're shooting a moving object or the background is moving cause of the wind you'll get some blur. Use a tripod if you do more shots.
You can create an HDR out of one RAW file.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:00 pm
lol, I cringed at the "WOW, GREAT SHOT!!" comments. Such people post their shit photos at rating groups at flickr to get as many comments as possible, They probably glance quickly over the thumbnail and post abhorrent replies with AWARDS!R00k wrote:I thought FX posted his method (roughly) a few pages back?
At any rate, the photo Dave linked to is shit. It may technically be HDR, but the camera wasn't even on a tripod, and you can tell - even with the tiny cropped version he posted. You can't tone-map a photo that looks like drunk vision to start with.
I'm still baffled that he got so many good comments. O_o
You have groups like 1-2-3, post one photo, comment 2 others, view 3 other photos.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:00 pm
yeah i seen that. it's alot of effort for one image just for some simple cunt to take a soft pic of a landmark, fuck it up and post THEN get his ass kissed and my image ignored 