File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
ppl who write comments against HDR

you are loosers, every serious photographer did HDR,

in the fucking Darkroom if you didnt do the todays equivalent of HDR you would be a amateur looser

check out ansel adams. he was the HDR WHORE..
he would fucking meter and shoot the shadows and then develop for highlights and then he would do a HDR on the darkroom

im guessing you people are the same people who shoot with digital SLRs and with the lens on MF

whats the point? AF can confirm your fucking focus while your fucking eye cant, you think you can focus correctly on a fucking small viewfinder which usually is darker than it should and usually 85-90% what the actual picture?
unless you are using a split screen focusing screen or that kind of shit, which again is pointless

or again you are probably one of those assholes who shoot on fucking M mode....
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
did i shut you up or what?
>> sage sage
Obvious troll is obvious.
sage goes in every field.
>> Anonymous
im a troll, but im a RIGHT TROLL

therefore
right troll is right
(sometimes im also left)
>> Anonymous
What shit?
>> Anonymous
Fully manual camera shooting negatives. No need for HDR just careful exposure which I'm good at because I've never used auto modes. I know what I want, not the camera.
Same pretty much goes for autofocus. I sometimes use it but only when shooting moving people or objects.

If you can't understand how a camera can't expose perfectly you can't understand photography.
>> Anonymous
I'm with this troll.

In my opinion (good) HDR comes closer to the way eye sees color, and when it doesn't it comes closer to the way the mind experiences color in the real world.

Op pic does neither, but it elicits a stronger emotional response than this image in true color would.
>> Anonymous
>>297605

lol!
>> Anonymous
The Zone System =/= HDR
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i dunno, the fake spelling reeks of effort.

maybe 1/10, and that's being generous.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
i agree with the 2nd half of this
theres no point in shooting full manual in an everyday situation, unless your everyday situation is you doing studio shots.

and hdr can look good
>> Anonymous
>>297793

Show me!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
Obvious troll is obvious, but he ain't wrong.

Combining multiple exposures to increase your dynamic range has been around since at least the 1850s (pic related; Gustave Le Gray's "The Great Wave". Back then, emulsions were way more sensitive to blue light, so it was impossible to get both the sky and the not-sky in one exposure). And yeah, burning and dodging during printing so that you can compress the higher range of a negative to fit onto the available range on photographic paper is basically the same thing.

But I think the thing that /p/ RAAAAAAGEs against is more the over-the-top HDR, wherein all shadows are eliminated and the whole photo looks like a magical unicorn barfed on a scanner, which is a more modern thing.
>> Anonymous
I shoot full manual. I have an incident meter. I have a digital camera. I meter much faster than I would in camera, w/ no exposure errors. I don' t have to worry about whether caucasian skin tones are +1EV or black skin tones are -2/3EV. Just incident. Worked well for me.

Maybe that's why i'm not in art school.
>> Anonymous
>>297816

You can go to art school with perfect digital photos too you know. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>297816
I go to art school, and we all incident meter when possible. Excluding the people that never bought a light meter...
>> Anonymous
>>297579

>Fully manual camera shooting negatives.
>shooting negatives.

lolwut