- This topic is empty.
Not really a landscape – Dun Laoghaire from Ferris Wheel
-
This is just interesting to see the detail available – otherwise not good enough to count as a ‘proper’ landscape. Taken from the top of the Ferris Wheel in Dun Laoghaire at the weekend. Unfortunately, the sun disappeared at the same time – so it’s quite overcast (and the wheel is gone now, so I can’t retake).
This is just a preview :
To see the full detail (Warning – 4Mb) :
http://frankc.smugmug.com/photos/91356365-O.jpg
You can scroll around and see a huge amount of detail.
The detail and clarity is amazing Frank. What camera and lens did you use? 4Mb took me about 12 seconds BTW.
Eos 5D + 24-105L + slightly wobbly one-handed shots out of the ‘gondola’ :)
About 50 seconds here, think the brother in law is piggy backing on my connection again.
Terrific amount of detail, I’ll certainly bear that camera in mind if/when I ever decide to upgrade.
With a little bit of a fake HDR technique you could bring out even more detail from the shadow areas – the steel doors behind the two parked red cars behind the wall have some nice texture for example.
Mick – sorry, but I don’t know what “fake HDR technique” is. :oops:
Something in Photoshop ? (My books are on their way from Amazon, as I write).However, I went back to the Raw version, and this is my current best version :
Only came across HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography myself about a month or two ago, Frank, seems like an interesting way to suck more information and detail out of the image. Basically you take bracketed shots and mash them together either in Photoshop using some plug-in in CS2 or in a standalone app like hdrsoft from photomatix. HDR, to me seems to take advantage of photo-retouching techniques (most people have their own way of doing this using layers and layer settings, which is what I meant by fake HDR) but it packages them up and puts them in a one/two click package.
I don’t have any bracketed exposures but I did a quick test using HDRsoft by taking a photo and creating a lighter version and a darker version just to see what happened. The top image is the original, the bottom was what HDRsoft came up with from mashing my overlightened and darkened images together. This was a first attempt and a bit rough, but I’m sure with a bit of practice (or possibly even properly bracketed images) more could be done.
Well most that I have seen look like someone got a lump of wet turf and smudged the picture with it. This is mostly the case when the technique is used with people. I have seen some indoor shots of places like churches where it has help balance up the very high contrasts. Especially balancing a dark interior with bright stained glass windows. Most landscaped and, as I said, people shots are destroyed. This could be because it may be being overdone. Generally they grate on me, but that’s just my taste.
I happen to agree with you, 99% of it is muck.
Reminds me of when photoshop made drop shadows and bevelled edges available at the click of a button instead of the process most professionals used which involved masks and channel ops, everything subtle about the techniques used was lost and crap bevelled edges and woeful drop shadows were everywhere. As a fad I find it interesting to watch how it develops…there truly is some awful cringe-worthy tat being produced. As a technique I’ll probably end up buying the product and faffing with it further to see how far i can push it, but in the meantime I’ll just fiddle with my own bits using 1990s stylee traditional retouching workarounds. ;)Valentia wrote:
Before anyone shoots me, this is only my opinion: I HATE HDR!! :)
I agree (99% of the time). When HDR is done well you don’t even notice it but unfortunately most of the time it is really noticeable.
Personally, I think the layering and masking techniques used by astrophotographers are still the best way to go. They are tried and tested techniques that have been around a few years. They work great for night photography too!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
