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)