I agree with your last para, Moose. Love or hate "HDR", but it's an
interpretation of the image, not necessarily a striving for realism.
But I do like both your "Half . . " and "Full Process".
Chris
On 31 Mar 2013, at 09:34, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I agree. I'm just not convinced that HDR is necessary to do that. The thing
> with high DR digital is that one needs to
> expose for the highlights, to avoid clipping. This, of necessity, pushes the
> mid tones down, and looks blah out of the
> camera, like this.
>
> However, all the data needed is still there, it just needs to be put back to
> rights. Even using this small, 8 bit file,
> there is plenty of data to make a balanced looking scene.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Carmona_Spain.htm>
>
> With this particular image, with the church facade in shadow, a fully
> balanced form still leaves it very dark. My choice
> was to bring it up to make the overall image look good. Clearly, it's not
> realistic, unless the building the camera is
> on has a bright white or silver wall that is reflecting light on the church.
> ;-)
>
> I think it is still much more realistic looking than either of the HDR
> images. Imagine what could be done with the Raw file!
>
> NOTE: The first alteration shows what gentle re-sharpening does for visual
> sharpness.
>
>> HDR is not much different from exposing for the shadows and developing for
>> the highlights!!
>
> Well, I never did that. It seems to me, though, that the sort of HDR you have
> done goes much farther. Both are artistic
> interpretations, rather than just bringing "an image which combines the best
> of the shadows and the best of the
> highlights [and] beats one that is in the middle ".
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|