| November 2007 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ||
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | ||
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
|
| klippan resturant |
And then it was also the fact that photos became more like illustrations. Very fine detail and ultra high contrasts and saturation to give the photo an oily sheen.
Thre is somthing Sci-Fi and modern about HDR (High dynamic range) photos.
|
| ziggarut |
It would seem that the best subjects of HDR photos are old building, churches especially, or almost anything in red brick. Textures play an important role and wet cobblestones just after a storm rarely disappoints.
|
| viking line ferry |
And how is it done well simply put you take three different pictures of the same scene. One is undereposed, one is normal and one is overeposed. This is easy to achieve if you have an auto-bracket feature on you camera. For these photos I set the auto-bracket to +1ev 0ev and -1ev and used Dynamic Photo HDR to combine the three photos. I then played around until I got the results that I wanted, which were over-the-top garish ultra contrast saturated monsters that looked nothing like real photographs at all but more like illustrations from a comic book.
You either like it or hate it, but there is no denying HDR makes your eyes pop
Send a message
Search for members





