usher99@xxxxxxx (Mike) wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> A bit of an aside, though ran into a series of photos using this
> software to extend dynamic range.
>
> Likely not necessary for scanned negatives, and have seen even .jpgs
> manipulated in PS to accomplish a similar task. It looks fast though.
>
>
> http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html
>
> Saw some nice images with it on a Zoto site, though many have a
> surrealistic overdone look, IMO. Wonder what you or anyone thinks
> about it. They do compare it to some PS manipulations, though they do
> not use the more elegant processing of many list members to fix these
> problems.
> In any event, thought you might find it interesting.
**SIGH**
Well, looks like it's time to remind the Assembled Ones of a link I
first posted about a year ago, to what I believe is *the* definitive
article on High Dynamic Range, by my close friend Royce Howland, one of
the moderators over at Naturescapes.net:
http://tinyurl.com/e5dqp
Read it, know it, live it. You'll be enlightened. And you'll stop
accusing HDR of producing "surrealistic overdone" images (it's a
particular misapplication of *tone-mapping*, which is a way of
[mis-]using the additional dynamic range info in HDR-capable images).
Yes, AG, I especially mean *you*. ;-)
Garth
P.S.: Royce just showed me a B&W photo he took of a Greek Orthodox
church he ran across on our trip to Crete a couple of months ago. I was
blown away by the HDR processing he did. It's quite capable of fixing
those little detail problems in the toe and shoulder areas of a digital
B&W image.
Now all we need to do is to get the manufacturers to create a camera
that does in-camera HDR capture, so the technique won't be limited to
[relatively] stationary objects/landscapes. Hello, Olympus?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|