File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
latest adventure
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:05 22:56:24Exposure Time30 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width667Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Play me off, Johnny!
>> Anonymous
HDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>> Anonymous
>>198847


Don't bother critiquing the work. Just spout off BS about HDR and vignetting whenever possible.


@OP, I like it. I think with some sort of subject in the grass it could be pretty awesome.
>> BurtGummer
     File :-(, x)
Play me off to page 10 johnny!
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>198814
Really nice colors. Looks like the sky has some annoying artifacts.
I might suggest a new crop. Now it looks a bit too tilted to the left side.

I approve the photo!
>> Anonymous
>>199300
It's boring and the HDR makes it look fake.

It's a boring house with boring grass and a fake sky. The angles are a clusterfuck and the colors are weird.

HDR does not make shitty subjects interesting.
>> Anonymous
Photoshooped bullshit is photoshooped.

I don't believe for a second that even using HDR you got that even of exposure on the house and night sky, and that you managed to find a lawn that curved at that bizarre angle.

Pixels, etcetera.
This is a chop job.
>> Anonymous
>>199304

That's fine. You're criticizing the content.

HDR is simply another technique available to photographers. It works in some instances and doesn't in others. The problem with /p/ is that you're all concerned with HOW the picture was taken over what the fuck is in it.
>> Anonymous
>>199304
>>199307

So... Have you guys ever even picked up a camera?
>> Anonymous
>>199312
>The problem with /p/ is that you're all concerned with HOW the picture was taken over what the fuck is in it.

BULLLLLLLLLLSHIT.
If an HDR is very well done and not over the top and faggoty /p/ will give props where props are fucking due. When a photo gets a one-word write-off or a copy-pasta image-based reply it's because the picture FUCKING SUCKS and the photographer is trying to use gimmicky technique to compensate for a boring, cruddy picture.

Lurk more, shithead.
>> Anonymous
>>199315

0/10
Re-re-re-re-reeeeported for trolling.
>> Anonymous
>>199307
You're wrong, but this, especially:

>and that you managed to find a lawn that curved at that bizarre angle.

Where do you live? Kansas? In even just barely hill country where I am, I can think of about fifteen slopes like that within a mile. In the mountains, that's nothing.

And they're fun as hell to roll, down. Little kids do some things right.
>> Anonymous
>>199319
Should read "down, too." No clue how I got that typo.
>> sage in all feilds sage
>>199307
i agree. grass looks like cloning tool as well. sage in all fields.
>> Anonymous
>>199316
Um, no. There was a thread once where the guy said he worked in HDR as a matter of stylistic preference, like (and this is my comparison, not his) Cartier-Bresson worked in black and white, filled with four or five awesome landscapes and cityscapes.

He got the shit flamed out of him.
>> Anonymous
Pretentious faggots, the lot of you.
>> Anonymous
>>199312
and if someone says HDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR they're saying it's a shitty use of it.

HDR, vignetting, oversaturation and b+w insta art get criticized often because people try to make shitty photos interesting with post-processing which is graphic design, not photography.

This shit has been rehashed so many times no one wants to spend the time explaining why a shitty HDR attempt like ops sucks.

Hence, HDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>> Anonymous
>>199316

This.
>> Anonymous
>>199324

HDR can be done to different levels.
I also remember a guy posting HDR panos of a forest to pretty good reception, because the HDR was fairly toned down and didn't look like an over-saturated mess.

When the technique becomes the main focus of the picture rather than the content of the picture, it's a shitty picture.

If the first thing I think when I see a picture of a house is "OH GOD HDR" instead of "Oh man cool picture of a house" it means the picture is a hunk of shit.
>> Anonymous
I feel a great sense of vertigo looking at this photo.
>> Anonymous
>>199324
HDR is meant to look like if you're actually there seeing the picture with your own eyes. Shit that looks from a 1999 PC game sucks shit and you know it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>198814
OP here, didnt even think this post was still alive. so here:
1. this isnt hdr, its just a raw file
2. it isnt a house, its a courthouse sitting on a giant hill, hence the curve in the grass, no clone tool at all, just raw processing. here is a very shitty picture i took with a point and shoot a long time ago, it shows the dynamics of the hill anyway.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-W30Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:03 17:21:59RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/7.1Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2112Image Height2816
>> Anonymous
>>199488
forgot to resize. sorry
>> Anonymous
So a picture that is NOT AN HDR SHOT shows up, and look what we get for the first reply...

But /p/ isn't obsessed with ripping HDR and vignetting. Not at all.
>> Anonymous
>>199488
I prefer this over the OP pic
>> Anonymous
>>199495
^ doesn't know how to HDR with a single RAW

>>199488
Post an unedited version of this raw and maybe I'll believe you
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>199501
oh i know how to hdr a single raw. all i did was bump the fill to bring in the blue sky a bit. but the humor you here's the uneditted raw

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:06 23:50:48Exposure Time30 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width667Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>199510
we want the actual raw file now
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>199511
>> Anonymous
>>199513
Put Fill light and recovery to max then fiddle around with the rest of the settings. Instant art.
>> Anonymous
>>199514
why does anyone even bother with /p/?
its obvious nothing is good enough, and everything is terrible, you cant get a professional response even though so many claim to be "professional"
>> Anonymous
>>199515
protip: GTFO
>> Anonymous
>>199519
protip: you're a fag
>> Anonymous
>>199525
no u