PDA

View Full Version : Some HDRs.

Kwirk
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 13:44
There's some haloing/noise, but I like the overall look.

http://i45.tinypic.com/juc0g3.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/2pttj7m.jpg
bpiper7
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 13:55
I like them too. Did the star bursts come free? :)
Kwirk
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 14:02
Haha, what?
Kevin
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 18:11
Kwirk, you need to shrink these down to 1024px on the long side or I will remove them. Read http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=194511 Thanks
eviltech
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 18:42
I think they are great, nice look.
Loodachris
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 18:53
wow nice!!
Gary McDuffie
28th of January 2010 (Thu), 19:49
Very nicely done.
NovusPhoto
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 00:33
It HAS to be the glass.

I'm using the gear in my sig, and photomatix and all the rest, and I can NEVER get my HDR's anywhere near this good.

Just phenomenal. I love them.
Kwirk
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 01:57
Kwirk, you need to shrink these down to 1024px on the long side or I will remove them. Read http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=194511 Thanks
Sorry, didn't see that! Fixed it.

Thanks everyone.
BMWRINO
29th of January 2010 (Fri), 15:09
nicely done!
navydoc
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 10:19
Beautiful colors. All they need is some noise reduction for the sky.
Gary McDuffie
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 10:31
Beautiful colors. All they need is some noise reduction for the sky.

Navydoc... I'm not at all trying to be confrontational, just trying to learn something. I'm curious why you say it needs NR on the sky. I don't see anything in the sky that doesn't look natural (except #2). I suspect you're pixel-peeping to see it. I'm a peeper too, but that picture is just as natural as can be when you look at the photograph and not the pixels. If you can't see it when viewed naturally, why spend time on it?

Again, I'm just trying to learn. I see that sort of comment a few times a day in these forums, and I have to go back and look to see why I missed it. I usually can't even see it unless I download a large image and look at full crop.
-AP-
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 10:36
Is that St Paul Cathedral?

Ken
Kwirk
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 11:02
Navydoc... I'm not at all trying to be confrontational, just trying to learn something. I'm curious why you say it needs NR on the sky. I don't see anything in the sky that doesn't look natural (except #2). I suspect you're pixel-peeping to see it. I'm a peeper too, but that picture is just as natural as can be when you look at the photograph and not the pixels. If you can't see it when viewed naturally, why spend time on it?

Again, I'm just trying to learn. I see that sort of comment a few times a day in these forums, and I have to go back and look to see why I missed it. I usually can't even see it unless I download a large image and look at full crop.
It's a bit less obvious on the first picture, but it's definitely noticeable on the second picture. I should also note that the second picture was cropped.

Is that St Paul Cathedral?

Ken
Sure is!
-AP-
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 11:08
Very photogenic building. Nice job...
What does the image look like not cropped? Your lucky. There are Soooooooo many great places to photograph out there..

Kenny..
navydoc
30th of January 2010 (Sat), 15:37
Gary...definately not pixel peeping here. Just viewing at the size posted above. The second image is the most obvious...on my monitor at least.

No worries about being confrontational...I just posted a couple of hdr's you're welcome to comment on too.

The OP even mentioned there was some noise in the sky.