
though if you've actually made any money through yours i may kick you in the fuck
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:20,
archived)

Sleepytiems nao.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 0:48,
archived)

you here *points here*, me neere *points over neere*
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 0:51,
archived)

They just look like regular photos but with less contrast.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 0:46,
archived)

when you view the source images. The dynamic range in the image above cannot be replicated by a digi SLR. The image above has about 4 stops of exposure.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 0:52,
archived)

"The dynamic range in the image above cannot be replicated by a digi SLR"
Are you pissed?
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:00,
archived)
Are you pissed?

I may venture to my fridge one final time ;)
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:04,
archived)


i was going to try to figure it out
but after 5 minutes of bemusement i figured out that for some reason i had googled Bristol stool cake
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:30,
archived)
but after 5 minutes of bemusement i figured out that for some reason i had googled Bristol stool cake


in essence, it overexposes or underexposes dead easily. Well before the human eye.
So you take 2 or 3 pics, expose 1 for the sky, 1 for the ground, and 1 inbetween, then you get funky HDR software to merge it together. That gives you an image where you can see clouds, sun, detail in the shadow. That's it basically.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:20,
archived)
So you take 2 or 3 pics, expose 1 for the sky, 1 for the ground, and 1 inbetween, then you get funky HDR software to merge it together. That gives you an image where you can see clouds, sun, detail in the shadow. That's it basically.

I like purdy ones. I have stolen yours to use as desktops one day.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:21,
archived)

without fireworks to be honest dude. I'm not discerning any detail I might be missing, just a big absence of what?
I appreciate you are a photographic guy, like me; but that's simply lost on me
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:23,
archived)
I appreciate you are a photographic guy, like me; but that's simply lost on me

unless you have the world's biggest flashgun. That you can't see what I've done makes me think I've done it right tbh.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:37,
archived)

but I could get the same on even the most basic modern SLR; assuming you can fuck about with the ISO enough, and a reasonable lens
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:41,
archived)

that is actually a tremendous picture, my gob is quicker than my fingers
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:45,
archived)

That usually goes wrong in photos.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:21,
archived)

downloaded photomatix and HDRed this -
www.flickr.com/photos/topaz-mcnumpty/3021142953/sizes/l/
I was delighted. Sad git.
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 0:51,
archived)
www.flickr.com/photos/topaz-mcnumpty/3021142953/sizes/l/
I was delighted. Sad git.

your Irwellian images are grand - I cannot get scenic shots HDRed to any sense at all. Its all a bit random so far* as I can tell.
*not very
:(
( ,
Sun 16 Nov 2008, 1:00,
archived)
*not very
:(