File :-(, x, )
HDR Anonymous
Which program do you use? i use photoshop CS3 but takes along time to make it good. Ive heard PTGui is nice aswell... comments?
>> Anonymous
No HDR. HDR should not occur.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
unlike>>80118, I'll be a little more helpful.
Photomatix seems to produce good results from what i've used.
>> Anonymous
Photomatix Pro.
>> Anonymous
WTF, shitty halo is shitty
>> Anonymous
FDRtools on OSX

free software with good results
>> Anonymous
PTGui just stitches photos together to make panos..last time i used it. Now I use CS3 for all my shitz.
>> Anonymous
>102 KB, 350x233

What the fuck.

The image was barely viewable.
>> Anonymous
>>80306
It's a thumbnail from an article about HDR, not an HDR shot that the OP took.

(I know, 'cause I read the same article)
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>80322

well that clearly violates the guidelines
>> ???????????????????wish????????
>>80330
and you think you're the admin or something?
troll
>> Anonymous
>>80727
fake pseudo hdr is worse than real hdr.
>> Anonymous
>>80729
Most people are too retarded to to it the real way so technically the "pseudo dhr" technique is better looking and more effective.
>> onelegout
So, why is HDR so frowned upon here?
When it's used well it can look great!
I've posted many HDR photos on here, and nobody has commented on the use of HDR!

When I use HDR, I use it to bring out more detail in the shadows and in the sky, but I do it subtly so that you don't look at it and think 'that is an HDR photo'.
Is this bad? why is it bad?
I'd like to know whether it's the fact that HDR was used which is frowned upon, or whether people just dislike the photos which look blatantly tonemapped?
H
>> Anonymous
>>80730
you should be able to do pseudo hdr with curves and levels since its not like that one file has more detail than...itself.

>>80731
because 99.9% of people dont know how to do HDR properly and end up with stupid looking crap with immense halos or completely artificial looking photos.
>> Anonymous
>>80731
Most people do it because they actually want it to look like HDR because they think it's cool when in fact it looks like shit. If you use it and nobody can tell that means you're doing it right.
>> Anonymous
>>80732
>>80733
Ohh shi-! You mean it couldn't possibly look cool to anyone who doesn't jack off in a darkroom? As far as I know there is no final definition of beauty when it comes to photographs. Go be an hero.
>> Anonymous
HDR is for faggots.
>> onelegout
>>80745
That's like saying, 'my poorly exposed, out of focus, badly compused images of nothing interesting are great photos because me and my mum like them'

What's the point in taking photos that everybody dislikes?

You post your photos on here for critique, and if you receive bad critique you should take it on board and use it to improve your photography, not deny it and say 'well not EVERYBODY hates it so it's fine!'

H
>> Anonymous
>>80118
>>80330
>>80729
>>80733
>>80752
>>80775
all speak the truth, no one does hdr right it usually looks like ass, and most ppl just take a random boring ass pic hdr style and think that the fact that its hdr somehow makes it interesting when in all reality it was just a boring shitty pic to begin with
>> Anonymous
>>80778

Seconded.
>> Anonymous
HDR sucks
>> Anonymous
>>80906
It doesn't.
Idiots who use it everywhere do.