My turn to Spam

what did you do to that poor wee robin to make it look so scared

btw, i like those nice big tits
 
gingerfreak said:
Yeah, I'll send that one of your woodland setup to my gran...

Some nice photos. Tried doing anything in HDR yet?
Click to expand...

the old high dynamic range imaging?

of course.

saves loads of pissing about with external filters.

HDR will come into its own when i get round to shooting stuff other than small animals. :lol:
 
HDR stuff is great, some amazing pics i've seen using it lately....

Get on it Chewie!
 
A certain (empty) Grove in HDR...

170441120_72a6fd49e2.jpg


Odd people but Es Vedra looks amazing...

170950133_a580ea3524.jpg


Sunset...

170955803_1b4371b537.jpg


All c. flickr (more HDR at http://www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/)
 
I agree with you, it was just one of the few Ibiza HDRs I could find, and I liked the sea, sky (ceslestial entity excepted) and Es Vedra.

I think I might have to have a go at some this year.
 
gingerfreak said:
I agree with you, it was just one of the few Ibiza HDRs I could find, and I liked the sea, sky (ceslestial entity excepted) and Es Vedra.

I think I might have to have a go at some this year.
Click to expand...

theres some right old arguements going on about what is HDR... 3 seperate exposures or 3 exs from one RAW file.

tbh, its all a bit anal, and some of the so called HDR images ive seen are ****.

the whole point of it is to get 3 exposures and use parts of each to create one shot, where in the past it would have been impossible to do so using film. :rolleyes:
 
I knew there was more info in RAW files, but I didn't realise there was enough data to produce 3 different good quality exposures.

I agree some stuff looks crap (some looks like it's been badly painted, there's an over-abundance of haloing) but some stuff's pretty imaginative, and the well-done natural stuff can be amazing. I'd like to use it to just do what the original idea was, to get an image closer to that registered by the human eye.
 
gingerfreak said:
I knew there was more info in RAW files, but I didn't realise there was enough data to produce 3 different good quality exposures.

I agree some stuff looks crap (some looks like it's been badly painted, there's an over-abundance of haloing) but some stuff's pretty imaginative, and the well-done natural stuff can be amazing. I'd like to use it to just do what the original idea was, to get an image closer to that registered by the human eye.
Click to expand...

with RAW you can get away with approx 1.50 either side for your light and dark (depends of course the quality of yr one exposure, if its a **** one, its ****. the camera never lies!)

i mean why the **** would someone wanna alien skin something?

it looks gash and is a waste of a couple hundred quid! :lol:

im in process of retouching all my shots in the last 12months now ive got the hang of RAW processing. and being really ruthless and binning them, almost a great shot ones...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top