File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
have some hdr /p/

comments please
>> Anonymous
HDR the crutch of a bad photographer.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
have some jumping asian chick now

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:02:19 02:21:35Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1045Image Height700RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
before shop

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:02:19 02:02:23Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/9.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height669RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>130825
nah

HDR can be well done, HDR can be shitty, just like anything else
>> Anonymous
>>130825
i think cars look pretty sweet HDR atleast the few ive seen
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>130836
I think its the massive amounts of praise shitty pictures get that are HDR that really irks /p/

go to flickr / deviantart, and praise is lavished all over pathetic pictures that HDR is thrown on because it makes things look "pretty".

I have a friend who only takes HDR's because he thinks normal pictures are boring, His shots aren't even well composed by any means, but he gets a lot of attention on flickr because of "the colors"
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
we need sum hdr cat nao
>> Anonymous
>>130824
Deep cove fag? I'm a delbrook fag.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
     File :-(, x)
>>130839
true
my HDRs got massive praise compared to other stuff on dA which made me think "OMG I AM SO GOOD"
people with little/no taste in art appreciate any HDRs
It's not very easy to do it effectively. I've only managed to do it once
(TRUE HDR picture related)

someone said to me that HDR is the new lens flare.
there's some truth in that

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:05 20:47:07F-Numberf/3.5ISO Speed Rating100Focal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width626Image Height910
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
     File :-(, x)
>>130876
Its hard to tell you used any sort of HDR technique there, which is good of course. Microcontrast Cranked to the Max is not the way to go.

I have a few pics I think I used HDR on properly. Heres my best one IMO.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:30 16:24:06Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1800Image Height600
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>130890
would agree its a well done HDR.

whereas beethy's look sorta like it was shot on an overcast day cos the lighting just feels flat?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
hdr isn't popular because it looks good.

it's popular because amateurs try to put a dollar value on every stop's worth of dynamic range, (and all the other image sensor variables). that's why they poo-poo olympus and worry about dpreview chartz. they figure that three or four or five extra stops of information is more bang for the buck from their camera. that's the entire phenomena in a nutshell.
>> Anonymous
>>130890

i liked your IR versions of this shot better. it's still really well done HDR though... subtle, but enough to know it's there.
>> Anonymous
>>130876
and then you had to come here to /p/ and see people pounce on your work. /p/ gives pretty good advice though, I learned some things here and there.
>> Anonymous
Awesome car, too bad you chose a really shitty location to take the picture.
>> Anonymous
>>130950
The location was picked to contrast the beauty of the car with its dull surroundings.
>> Anonymous
>>130956
I like that aspect of it, but there are certain things that are distracting, like the light pole sticking straight out of the hood, and the yellow van visible through the window.

Good idea, but I think you should go back and shoot more. Take a whole roll (or 36 exposures on your dSLR) and pick a few you like most.

It's hard to critique work when people only post a single image. Would be interesting to see multiple attempts.
>> req:mustang5.0 !wqLZLRuzPQ!!9IH
>>130964
No faggot I was trolling you. Not op but I am>>130956
>> Anonymous
>>130966
For a troll, you make a compelling argument.
>> req:mustang5.0 !wqLZLRuzPQ!!9IH
>>130986
I normally don't think of one sentence as a compelling argument.
>> Anonymous
>>130991
One sentence is all it takes to make a point.
>> Nieros
>>130991

Did you just troll yourself?
>> Anonymous
>>130824

1. I can see you and other worthless shit like a lightpole in the car reflection, learn to use the clone tool.

2. By HDR did you just take 2 shots and combine them or more? This doesn't look like more than 2...

3. I understand your desire to show contrast, but why the incredibly retarded angle with all the other distracting elements?
>> Anonymous
>>130824

FAAAAAAAAABULOUS!
>> Anonymous
>>130876
"True" HDR?

You are stupid? Do you even know how TRUE HDR works? They way you get true HDR, it's just impossible to have humans, or anything that could move between to shoots in the picture.

Good HDR pictures are taken using multiple shoots of the same scene (with different stops/aperture each time) and then combining them together. I will go as far as to say that you could try that technique with film.

What you just called "HDR" is a stupid overuse of different filters on THE SAME IMAGE. Usually looks like shit, and usually it's incorrectly used.

The whole HDR crap started (IMO) when attempting to imitate the look Jim Fiscus gives to his images. While you might, or might not, like Fiscus' work, you gotta admit his editing isn't as obnoxious as the people who try to imitate him.

Instead of trying to imitate the effect via the use of layers in PS, retards started using shitty plug-ins that poorly copy the effect. They don't even take multiple shoots of the scene, it's all done in a single image, abusing plug-ins and filters from PS. And now you have all mediocre -yet big- photo communities using those shitty plug-ins in shitty photos, thinking they are any better photographers for doing that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>131030
Lrn2meme
>> Anonymous
>>131032
Anyone who uses this kind of HDR knows dick about photography, period.

Just because it's a meme doesn't mean it's something good.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>131034


yeah... and i do have to say... before it was a meme it was used in a serious tone... seriously...

i do still apologise in my contribution in making it a meme... i'm so so sorry
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>131030
lolol

newfag
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>130966
>>130991
this isnt /o/ what are you doing here?!

also ITT TROLLS.