>> |
Anonymous File :-(, x)
>>90253 I have no idea what you're talking about. Ad agencies often use properly exposed photos in magazines, but HDR is still primarily the realm of 11-year-old deviantart fags.
There is no reason for this photo to be HDR, the dynamic range in this scene is well within what would be recorded on ordinary film/RAW file. If you're shooting digital, a little post processing to boost shadow detail would have the same effect. If you're shooting slide film, that's just how it would look. HDR is a tool for managing scenes with extremely high dynamic range, not for recovering shadow detail in scenes where it isn't beyond the range of the camera/film. If you just want your photo to look funny with halos and screwed up contrast, the effect can be achieved easily enough without bothering with HDR.
Here is an example of HDR employed properly. While it's a shitty photo, it illustrates the idea of recording a dynamic range that would otherwise be outside of what the camera is capable of capturing in a single exposure.
|