File :-(, x, )
eku !8cibvLQ11s
I shooped up a pano, double lol. Guess the place and win the internets.

Have no fear, no HDR is here. But, as I said, it's shooped.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:29 01:14:27Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height561
>> Anonymous
>>171289
fuck that looks unnatural, if it's not HDR then what in god's name did you do to it?
>> Anonymous
Astrodome?
>> BurtGummer
looks like youve been messing with the Unsharp mask, maybe the saturation a bit.

Also im thinking you MAY be in ROME. Or possibly phillie.
>> Anonymous
Wrigley Field?
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
Oh shi- I typoed the name. Well, whatever.

Here's a RAW panorama. And by RAW I mean jpg straight out of camera.

Did I win many internets? Did I lose everything?
>> Anonymous
did someone steal eku's account or something

i remember him as that guy with a 5D who posted random, okay looking pictures

then he started posting these atrocities
>> Anonymous
I hate so much photoshop. Generally, I try to use photoshop to compensate for the camera being unable to capture the real world correctly, not to create some sort of unnatural, super saturated painting.
>> Anonymous
>>171305
dammit, man, this is so much better.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>171292
>>171299
Just RAW processing. And a hell lot of sharpening (something around 100).

>>171306
5D would be so cool. It's my day dream. The sudden stream of shooped photos is just because I got a handfull of photos to go trough, and to experiment.

>>171313
That's the point of photos with high dynamic ranges, I think. I captured the scene as I saw it. I saw the clouds. I saw the shadows.

The version which came straight out of my camera, seen on the second pano, would be more surreal.
I mean, how surreal is it to see only 5 stops of dynamic range? Instead of say... twenty?

As I've been comparing those two panos closely for a while, I just find the second pano more surreal than the first one. (The thumbnail just doesn't look the same for the first one. :( )

Could all this dynamic range hate be because it looks more different than "high contrast" photos?
>> Anonymous
>>171289

The clouds here look FUCKING RETARDED.
Scale & angle are totally wrong.
Real clouds don't look like that.
>> Anonymous
no its because your monitor and the jpeg format will only support a certain amount of dynamic range. when you make them fake the DR to look like it has more, it starts looking weird.
>> Anonymous
P.S. what did i say about using photoshop? you arent allowed to anymore. you are terrible at it.
>> Anonymous
Eku, the shooping is distracting. The content gets totally buried underneath these heavy stylizations. In theory, having more stops of DR should look more natural, but it just doesn't work that way when it's achieved like this.

You're right the original doesn't quite look right, but JPEGs out of camera never do. Well-processed raw files do, like your concert work. If you took a straight JPEG from there, it'd look off, too.
>> Anonymous
>>171321
HDR pictures rarely look realistic unless done correctly. Normal monitors can't display HDR correctly and many people overshoop.

Your picture isn't as bad as the thumbnail makes it out to be, but I'm bothered by the unnatural sky and saturation.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>171289


the restored version