File :-(, x, )
photon
CN Tower...taken at a friend's condo
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID85f50c4f1525ee6d2191ea4252a58335
>> photon
     File :-(, x)
Lines and circles...

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID919df53cf6d0e7a25df6ef82a55db5fc
>> photon
     File :-(, x)
One more...

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID47ddc29abb7eeb3bea9eac609b29bb8f
>> Anonymous
wow, must be some condo
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177133
my preferred photo, the others are to obviously hdr. which irritates me beyond belief.
>> photon
>>177143
Not HDR at all. Handheld exposure.
>> photon
>>177142
Yea, right by the lake..very nice view.
>> Anonymous
>>177133

I like this
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>177145
Really? the dark areas seem just that bit to unrealistic!
>> Anonymous
>>177150
lol, just because the sky is correctly exposed doesn't mean that the photo is hdr. It does look shooped a bit though.
>> Anonymous
>>177145

I call bullshit.
If it isn't HDR then explain what shooping you did.
You cannot get these kinds of evening exposures in cities. Detail in both the clouds & in the shadows between buildings? Not possible in an unedited photo.
>> Anonymous
>>177159
if its just the right time, then the sky is dark enough to where you have to use a longer exposure to expose it properly, it could be close enough to the rest of the scenery to where you dont need HDR. then you can bring up the shadows in photoshop if you need to.
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
Fuck yeah TORONTO!
>> Anonymous
>>177163

IZ DAT SUM KEN ROCKWELL?

Also I asked the OP, not you.
I don't give a shit about what you theorize the photo is. I want to know what it ACTUALLY is.
>> Anonymous
the third one is really noisy. its almost as irritating as Torontonians are.
>> Anonymous
Why is so illogical that someone actually took a properly exposed image? Maybe tweaked some levels/contrast, but definitely not HDR.

And even if it was, it's not that ridiculous looking HDR, so what does it matter?
>> Anonymous
>>177169
its not ken rockwell, its called knowing what youre doing.
>> photon
>>177159
Saturation, sharpen, cropped.
BTW, photo shot in RAW. Cant pull the EXIF...anyone can help?
>> Anonymous
>>177172
>Why is so illogical that someone actually took a properly exposed image?

This is /p/.
>> photon
     File :-(, x)
Here is the original, no post processing at all.
Just RAW -> JPG

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID85f50c4f1525ee6d2191ea4252a58335
>> photon
You can try that yourself, use the curves and saturation tool...underexposed in raw so that I can recover more details in post work.
EXIF data only shows ISO 200 and aperture 6.3, at 18mm
Cant remember the shutter.
>> Anonymous
>>177182

why are you losing all your exif data?
>> Anonymous
>>177183
picasa

real men use mspaint
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>177185
picassa doesnt strip exif for me.
>> photon
>>177187
Try using picasa with RAW files...i dont know how to fix it.
>> Anonymous
>>177159
>I call bullshit. If it isn't HDR then explain what shooping you did.

Noob... Look at the third photo, It's that grainy because it's a pushed raw.
>> photon
>>177213
Of course, I can run the photo thru noise reduction, bleh, lazy to fire up photoshop...too bad picasa doesnt have a NR setting.
>> Anonymous
>>177215
l2 lightroom bittorrent
>> Anonymous
>>177213
>Noob...
Yes? What of it?

>Look at the third photo, It's that grainy because it's a pushed raw.
While you're probably correct, I'm just surprised that the sky is so perfectly exposed while the buildings are all fucked. Did he selectively push things, then?
>> photon
Nope...general edit.