 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
Daz: cheers, that would be awesome :D
bdwooding -AT- gmail -DOT- com Spirit: rockage - i will have a look through that as well :) I pasted this in irc ages ago but here it goes.
http://skynet.campus.luth.se/~chosen/bam/gtc_telescope_sg011203-02p.jpg Some heavy machinery for you
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=2591&start=1 check page 2 too. This has been quite quiet lately. :/ http://www.funmansion.com/html/Underground-City.html
There's a link posted earlier by Jago with some, but not all of these pics it seems. Stop taking "HDR" photos. They look like shit. Bracketing your exposures and then photoshopping them together to crush the exposure range into 0-255 not only isn't HDR, it drains your image of depth and color, puts ugly haloes around things, and is a moronic amount of effort for a result that looks indistinguishable from a quick Filter->Other->High Pass in Photoshop.
Knock it off. Please. HRD destroys all the shadows making pics all fullbright. and we all know how we hate fullbright, right? hdr looks sharp but synthetic and lifeless...
I assumed that they HAD simply done a high-pass filter. It's pretty ugly in some of those photos.
One probably needs better, calibrated displays and dark rooms for the viewers too so photographing can advance, so that it can show realistic bright and shadowy stuff. These hacks are not good.
Interesting idea though, use all the bracket photos, since the CCD dynamic range isn't as good as film. It's just done somehow very wrong here. There was a siggraph paper that talked about taking two photos, one with a flash and one without, to get a crisp photo with accurate lighting.
Basically it used the flash photo for all the crisp, in-focus details, but used the no-flash photo for the color and brightness of the ambient lighting. Not a pro-quality solution, but this is software that the average dude with a cheap camera can use. http://research.microsoft.com/projects/FlashNoFlash/ I nowadays never use flash. It just destroys everything about the original setting and atmosphere. I'm planning on moving to a F 1.9 seventies Canonet and 800 or 1600 film for dark environments (tested it a few years ago, there is some noise but the photos have atmosphere too). I don't really like B&W either. doh. How limited technology still is today.
I really hate flashes, but I'm no photographer, and holding my camera still for a couple of seconds to get a long exposure of a dark scene is a pain in the ass and prone to blurry results. When it works, the results are way better though.
I really hate flashes, but I'm no photographer, and holding my camera still for a couple of seconds to get a long exposure of a dark scene is a pain in the ass and prone to blurry results.
that's why actual photographers use tripods :) you can very often find a place to lay your camera on or support it against. Big tree trunks are better than tripods, since if you push hard enough (with an SLR the "shoulder" the lens and body form is good), it's completely standing still. Also, some table or ground and just put something under the camera to do the vertical alignment.
Tripods are never around when the situation comes and they are ~never robust enough. :/ I also like to use manual focus, since otherwise it's always fucked up (in this way only like 30% of the cases, especially if there's not much time.) Of course that's a pain in the ass with cheap new cameras. Tripods are always around when you always have one with you. =)
I used to do like you bambuz, find somewhere to push my camera against, but having a tripod is much much better, and alot more stable. For once BoingBoing is useful/interesting:
http://pingmag.jp/2006/07/24/japan-underground-photography/ (No, this is not that old photoset of the G-Cans project.)
|
|
| This thread has been closed by a moderator. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |