The trouble is, you go to that place because the picture of it looked good, then you discover it doesn't look anything like the picture, so you end up disappointed. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
Sorry, but after a cursory look, they all began to look remarkable like each other. He obviously like a rampant sky, but the sky dominates too much, too often. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
Indeed, but even back on "the old days", processing was taking place in the darkroom. I've got nothing against processed pictures as it takes the whole photography thing from something other than a snapshot of a split second into an art form of its own. Great for those who are photographers or lovers of dramatic pictures, but a little (I hate to say misleading, but that's the only word I can think of right now so...) misleading to those who are attracted to places shown in photo's. Granted these photo's are usually designed to attract people to places (advertisements an' all that) but there are some out there, me included, who never realised the extent to which some photo's have been tweaked. I'd never heard of HDR for a start. I've *seen* pictures that I now know have been "HDR-ed" but I thought that the photographer had spent time lighting a scene and then clicking the button, not clicking the button then generating something later on the computer. Still very interesting mind. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
<reads> Still doesn't really answer the question. _You_ may want to know, but I can't work out in what way it would be 'important'. It's only a picture, FFS.
Exactly. HDR isn't anything new. Like tourist brochure pictures showing something dramatic but conveniently leaving an eyesore out of shot. Like the pyramids without the tourists, smog/dust and hotels. I often think that when I see something that looks great whether it's a realistic representation. So yeah, it's misleading, to a point. I've got news for you. Films and TV programmes don't look like real life either. Ever noticed how Top Gear nearly always has a graduated filter on the sky to reduce the contrast? HDR is just another tool. You can't just take a photo of any old thing and make it good, just by post-processing. Even though I've recently gone overboard with HDR, I still only find 1 or 2 from a trip that work for me. Sometimes the single shot works better. It's a brave new world and no mistake.
On camera or post-production? Many TV series' and films use a colour-cast to denote locations; e.g. Lost, CSI Miami, etc.
"Nothing in the world is new". Wasn't that a quote someone made donkey's years back? Oooh, don't get me started. My missus keeps telling me I'm the Grumpy Old Man when I watch TV coz of my comments like "Who the **** do they think they're fooling?". Oh yes, they really know how to make a blue sky blue and not "sky white". Well it'd be a fucking boring one if nothing changed and no-one tried new things. I'm still not happy with enhanced tits though. No-one's got THAT right yet. -- Beav VN 750 Zed 1000 OMF# 19
And how wrong he was. -- | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack| | |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you| | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. | | Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been | | in |good to you so far... | | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
It's quicker to do it on camera, and given that the graduation normally cuts across trees or buildings, then I would think that's what they're doing. Unless it's done in post and they're just happy with a quick job. Masking around trees is a fucking nightmare. Yes, CSI Miami has a warm cast and CSI NY has a cold cast. Even to the point when the Miami crew went to NY before the latter was an off-shoot, and whilst the set/background was dark and cold, the character from Miami was bathed in sunlight. I forget the names as I don't watch either these days. Such things are available to home editors these days with a wealth of plug-ins to provide that "film look", ignoring all the other aspects that make film look like film.
Whoever it was who said "Nothing in the world is new". 'specially if he said it more than 50 years ago. He wouldn't recognise the world now.