File :-(, x, )
Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Photography Thread

Theme: Vanishing Point

Post away
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:19 11:23:07Image Width941Image Height623
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
hmmm EXIF:

ISO:200
f/8
HDR 3 exposures
>> Anonymous
>>HDR 3 exposures
>>HDR 3
>>HDR

GTFO
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>85043

post a photo or GTFO of this thread.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
My target for that day was "get decent shots with the 50mm"

no HDR witchtrickery, no shoop.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 350D DIGITALFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.2Owner NameunknownSerial Number0630533280Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:16 15:29:19Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessHighSaturationHighContrastHighShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Camera Actuations1918238793Color Matrix0
>> Anonymous
HDR: No photo is a bad photo.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>85061

Cool shot... my wa taken with the 50mm too.

what's the hate with HDRs? My wasn't even done with the details enhancer in Photomatix but the tone compressor which doesn't give it that cartoony look. The shot was taken when the sun was just dipping below the hills on the left.

Oh well, guess there's no pleasing Anon.
>> ?
i've seen bad HDRs .. but this one beats all of em

average photo.. HORRIBLE HDR D:
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Can i just link to my gallery, i spend all my time doing this sort of stuff with my 11-18 which is cheating right?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
From a long time ago. Nikon F65, transferred to digital at the photolab.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix S6000fdCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:04 10:03:36RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/140 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.7Brightness6.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.60 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height800
>> Anonymous
Wow. All this hate for HDR...

All I'll say is this. The ultimate goal for an HDR image is to achieve the type of dynamic range the human eye has.

Cartoonish HDR images with a massive tonal distortion aren't photography, just as heavily shooped photos aren't photography. It's still art, but can't truly be considered photography as it is a misrepresentation of the camera's view of the scene.

Just my .02
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>85160
well photography's role seems to have changed since the 80s. its used to portray an idealistic view of reality rather than capture it. except for photojournalism all the other fields seems to involve some sort of editing to "perfect" a photo.
>> Anonymous
But crappily done HDR distorts the scene so much, it's not even representative of what was taken. When it goes even the basic retouching of a photo, it goes into manipulation. I mean I like HDR as how the people that came up with it envision its use, to bring up details otherwise lost due to a DSLR's narrow dynamic range.
>> Anonymous
>>85164
Perfecting a photo is one thing. Unsharp mask, clear up distracting things in the background, I think are fine, though some purists would still say that's too far and all you should be allowed to do is whatever you could do in a darkroom making an actual print.

Altering the intended content of the photo with tone shifts and color changes is manipulation, and leaves the realm of photography and into electronic art.
>> Anonymous
>>85167

Good photographers can change a lot in a darkroom. This idea that "it's okay if you can do it in a darkroom but nothing else" is arbitrary and retarded. Use whatever tools you have to make the picture you want. Anything else is just petty bickering as bad as the constant Canon Vs Nikon Vs Whoever.

Unless you are using it as evidence in court or as a news story no one will care how it is done and in those cases you could do a lot of dishonest things in the pre-digital era too.