HDR images, for the most part, even the more subtle examples, are quite easily noticeable. What I mean is more natural-looking manipulations. My shot today may seem okay right, but I cheated the crap out of that RAW file. It was not particularly sunny outside today, but 3pm is still 3pm, and a long exposure (say, 1/5th of a second in this case) will still be too bright, even at the lowest ISO and smallest aperture value (f/22, in this case). In post-processing, I underexposed the picture by two whole stops, boosted the blacks, added as much recovery as I could and increased the contrast a fair ways to get the picture looking relatively natural. I deliberately overexposed this picture far too much because I knew I could fix it later on.
My question is this: What tricks, then, when viewing a photograph online, has the photographer pulled?
I'm not the only deceitful one here today, as you'll read.
Frank
His note: Pat and I went for a drive today to Almonte and down the old Carp road. A great day. It was nice being a passenger again. Thanks for doing the driving, Pat. This photo was taken at the Almonte falls; however the reflection of the trunk is a creation. I masked the top trunk with some transparency and flipped it vertically. Made a few adjustments and voila..
Shannon
Working with geeks will make you see things of this nature.
Me
This composition is a bit funny, and this is the not the best long-exposure shot ever, but I didn't have a neutral density filter and had to resort to tweaking the picture like I explained above. I'm happy with the finished product, though I would have preferred if the middle part wasn't beyond recovery. For the most part, I like this.
Tomorrow is supposed to be very rainy. If it's not, I have ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment