File :-(, x, )
Anonymous

EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelFinePix S6500fdImage-Specific Properties:F-Numberf/5.0ISO Speed Rating100Focal Length6.20 mm
>> Anonymous
http://youtube.com/watch?v=P7ZfViiNYog
>> Anonymous
how come /p/ does not like HDR done like this?
>> Anonymous
>>68165
Because if you can see it's HDR from a mile away, it's a badly done HDR and should have never came to exist.
>> Anonymous
>>68167
I don't care what an anonymous crybaby like you think. Some people like the kind of effect exaggerated HDR gives, and that's that. So why don't you shut your man pleaser and come up with something amazing yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>68175
> Some people like the kind of effect
Yes, but we here aren't 12y old anymore.. so why don't you gb2/devART/?
>> Anonymous
>>68183
Yeah, let's all do sunrises and macro Bokeh because that's oh-so much more creative!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I personally like experimenting with HDR, however I've learned to be subtle about it since most purists shun my photos as soon as they find out. What does /p/ think?

I'll post some of my HDR photos.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:07:09 23:03:43Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width524Image Height800
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBELCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:06:28 19:16:46Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/3.5ISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution500 dpiVertical Resolution500 dpiImage Created2007:06:29 17:01:05Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width533Image Height800
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's some more exaggerated examples.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:03 19:43:00Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1024Image Height679
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:28 20:00:48Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width539Image Height800
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:06:01 17:23:19Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width533Image Height800
>> Anonymous
>>68201
OP here, you need to exaggerate them, lol.
Btw which program do you use?
>> Anonymous
>>68167
Does that apply for things such as IR photography as well?
>> Anonymous
>>68202

Photomatix Pro
>> Anonymous
>>68199

This is exactly how HDR should be used, in my opinion. Not to make things look "unreal" which was cool for approximately five seconds, but to reproduce the kind of impression the human eye gets from a scene. HDR is (obviously) great for overcoming the problems arising from the limited dynamic range of your camera, and for picking out the same details you'd see if you were really there.

Very pretty picture.
>> Anonymous
>>68194
I think that since HDR became popular on Flickr and programs like Photomatix came out HDR on the internet has become 99.999999% absolute garbage. It's on par with lens flare and difference clouds in my opinion. It's cool to those who don't know how to do it and quickly wears out of those who do. It requires little skill and a lot of 'lol i was playing around in photoshop'. I predict the super exaggerated type of HDR seen in the OP will blow over soon once every grandmother and child has tried it, just as cheap-ass photoshop filters have for the most part.
>> Anonymous
>>68216
The good photoshop tools are the ones that aren't automatic filters. When you use a tool right it no longer becomes unoriginal.
There's more to photoshop than easy filters, but most of the actually practical tools could probably be better designed to be more practical. I've been using photoshop a while and I'm hating it more and more. There has GOT to be a simpler program that's better designed.
>> Anonymous
>>68220
Photoshop is actually very simple, practical and well-designed if you know how to use as a professional would. The intricacies and seemingly strange orders of things make sense if you come from a photography background. Going from working in a darkroom to photoshop you begin to understand why photoshop is set up the way it is.
>> Anonymous
Well it's a memory-eater and the only tools I really use for photo manipulation are crop, levels, curves, and color balance. There's probably something better out there for that stuff.
>> Anonymous
Lightroom.
>> Anonymous
HDR is cool if its done right and when its done right you can hardly notice its a HDR. OP just looks like a pretty graphic, not a nice photograph.
>> Anonymous
God, some of these "Hate everything that reminds me of DA" people are worse than deviantart fags themselves. Detest HDR, then marvel at IR photos which are more exagerrated-looking than any HDR.
>> Anonymous
>>68153
I can see from the thumbnail that this is a 3.6mb piece of shit.

Why would i waste my time loading such a large, clearly shitty image?
>> Anonymous
>>68265
/p/ really needs the image limit set to 1MB. Or temporary bans for those who can't resize their images.
>> Anonymous
>>68266
Or maybe a sticky will suffice.
>> Anonymous
i hate 1mb limits. It's a pain when a picture is 1200 kilobites or something.
Almost none of my photography is 1mb but I know enough to keep it to 2mb or smaller. 1mb really isn't enough for a quality photo.
>> Anonymous
>>68273
>It's a pain when a picture is 1200 kilobites or something.
>picture is 1200 kilobites
>kilobites


You may store your pictures in 100-megabyte TIFF files if you like, just resize them to sensible resolution and size when you post them here. We don't need entire 8 MP images, ja?
>> Anonymous
>>68277
oh noez kilobite instead of kilobyte
>> Anonymous
An image, at a decent resolution for viewing clearly on a photography forum should not need to exceed 1mb, if it does, you are just asking for your work to be stolen and passed off as someone elses.
>> Anonymous
Am I the only one here using a sensibly-sized monitor? Viewed in a web browser, these huge photographs need to be raped by browser resizing to be viewed all at once. That sucks for the viewer, and thusly for the artist. File size doesn't bother me one bit; it's the physical dimensions of the image.

Listen, don't take my word on it. What size does Magnum Photos, made up of the absolute top professional photographers in the world, want its submissions in? You can read it right on their website: "The maximum size of each image should not exceed 700 x 950 pixels."

What size do professional and art photographers present their portfolios in? James Nachtwey's are all (depending on the aspect ratio they're cropped to) in the range of 500-600x300-400, including a small border. Michael Reichmann's front image right now is 540x309, with a larger version of (gasp!) 792x453 available. Erwitt's site is in flash, so I can't just get the dimensions by right-clicking, but they're reasonably sized. David Alan Harvey posts his at 450x299, with a larger 576x383 version available.

These are all people who know ten thousand times more than any of us do about the art and science of photography, and they don't see the need to post anything over 1000 pixels wide on a horizontal framing. Hell, Magnum won't even look at photographs that are.
>> Anonymous
>>68300
The pro photographers don't want to get their pictures used without permission, that's why they make them so small. Sometimes it's a pity that I can't use a good picture as my desktop background because the photographer posted only a 500x300 version.

But anything bigger than the resolution of an average monitor - and that would be around a megapixel - is definitely overkill. Loading big images is also a pain, because 4chan servers can be very slow at times. (At least we're lucky that there are no cameras that can save PNGs. Just look at VLC player shitstorms in /a/)
>> Anonymous
>>68300
As>>68301said, thats mostly a copyright issue, they dont want people stealing their nice hi-res pics.

But also i dont think most photographers, especially traditional, have any idea about web browsing and how shitty a 700x900 image looks on a montitor over 800x600.

I like the image to be large enough that i can look at it in detail, but not so large that when it minimises in the browser it looks like shit.
>> Anonymous
There's no such thing as too high-res. If you think it's too large for your monitor just shrink it down. Those who have larger resolutions don't like looking at stamp-sized photos and blowing them up makes everything look like ass.

Shrinking if too big = yay
Blowing up if too small = nay
If the images are posted in a somewhat large size then at least people have a choice in the matter.
>> Anonymous
>>68381

So you like looking at a 3000x2000 picture that looks like ass because you have to look at a smaller thumbnailed verson in order for it to fit on the screen?

That's retarded.

And who the fuck enlarges small images? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

All the images I upload are approximately 800x600 or smaller, and around 100kb.
>> Anonymous
>>68414
When it comes to the resolution I prefer at least 1-2MB (1-2 megapixels, of course.) If you were to print that image on an 8X10 it would look just right, but anything smaller blown up to 8X10 looks awful.
And if I ever wanted to get into photography professionally I would think a higher resolution would be better because they'd be printed even larger.
So sure, small files are good when viewing on the internet but they are otherwise impractical.
>> Anonymous
>>68381
There's such thing as too slow internet connections and 4chan servers. Plus, image shrinking in most browsers sucks.
Do you really think someone will be bothered to spend 5 minutes downloading each xbox-sized photo from /p/, then save it to disk and open with a different image viewer?

>>68427
No one is going to print photos taken from 4chan, so what you're saying is irrelevant. Of course, when you store your images for yourself, it's best to use quality as high as your storage media allows.
>> Anonymous
>>68196
How did you hold the camera so steady for 2 seconds in a car? Shaky exposure is my biggest problem right now.
>> Anonymous
>>68875
A tripod, monopod or similar contraption?
>> Anonymous
it is horribly done HDR, but even if it wasn't HDR it would still be a boring photo. I've experimented with the program, and I've realized that being subtle about it is the best way to go. Only morons would put everything on the highest settings when doing HDR.

It looks fake. It doesn't look surreal or pretty. It looks like some little kid put the tonal map on 100%.
>> Anonymous
>>68153
bump!
>> Anonymous
Who the fuck would bump this thread?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69132
In answer to your question:
>>69122
(Also,>>69132, ya dumbass)