^I really needed to order a grip, but I don't think I'm going to be able to order one in time for this weekend. Oh well. 4 hours driving to Socal really isn't that big of a fuss.

 

 

mine

 

Nice!

You could've got more range if you took a couple more pics with higher exposures. The more pics you take, usually, the better the range. I've seen HDRI's which consisted of up to 9 shots.

 

Yeh, I realize that now. Those pictures were taken a few weeks ago, prior to my dive into the HDR world. I wasn't planning on using them for HDR, but now I know.

 

Good one! Almost looks CG.

 

 

^wow that water looks crazy

 

 

 

used HDR to make it a little more vibrant and add just a bit of umph.

 

hmm... that doesn't really look like an HDRI. The sky is washed out. The range isn't very dynamic.

 

That's nice. Not too outrageous like most HDRI's I've seen.

 

the sky was clouds/fog so there isn't much color to play with... plus I used it to make it look more realistic vs ppl who use HDR to make it look almost CGI

 

but that's the point of HDR. It's to give your photos a High Dynamic Range. It's to help prevent washing out & too much dark areas. You just have to play with it a little more. Even if it's a cloudy day, with a few tweaks, you can capture details of the clouds which would give the photo a more dramatic feeling. Still a good photo.

 

well depends on what the og pic was like. u can only take the original so far before it looks like a bad photoshop job

 

wongdood, post the pics that you used to generate that HDRI.

 

you mean original(s)? Unless he attempted to create a psuedo HDR pic with just 1 pic.

 

With all these comments on HDR and what is "supposed" to be HDR, take a step back fro a moment and just interpret the photograph how the photographer interpreted/processed his pic.

HDR is just a tool to enhance images, whether it be "wild" HDR with haloing and bright colors and intense contrast, to a subtler interpretation to use just to bring out more details in the shadows and highlights... ultimately, there is no right or wrong. Individuals will have their opinion and as individuals, we have our distinct likes and dislikes, but again, in art, there is no right or wrong. We just get what the photographer interprets and creates. One might like the artificial look and not try to hide it was HDR'd, and others might like the subtle look.

Seems to me he knows what HDR can do, but used it to give it some bite, but Photoshop could have been used just the same.

 

thank you

i completely agree, the cartoonish looking HDR's are interesting, but i also like the pics with just subtle tweaks alot more.

im sure photographers dont take pics to make them look like cartoons and to have over dramatic colors and what not. with that being said though, i have found there are simply some pics that make for better HDRI's than others... and none of those pics that i have noticed have had cars in them...