Red-Ringed Tupperware Party with (super-effective) Tin Foil Hats (6)

Hey Didier.

I'm going to Geneva again next week (Tuesday-Friday). Any ideas about what I can shoot there in the evenings?

Mooooooooooooooorning.

aussieskier wrote in post #4612098
Playing with processing and larger images.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO

NICE!! See, not all images need to be perfectly balanced within the dynamic range that a camera can capture. Underexposure AND overexposure have their place!

I was watching someone playing Final Fantasy (forget which instalment) on a Playstation the other day, and I couldn't help but think that the scenes obviously (they are) computer generated. In certain places there would be shadows beyond the DR of the human eye or sensor, but everything seems too evenly, too....perfectly.. lit.

Permagrin wrote in post #4612254
okay I tonemapped my owl and am posting him for my first shot as the large file size....though I don't know if it'll look okay because I compressed it a bit...I've never tonemapped an animal...LOL

Permagrin wrote in post #4612309
well I used a subtle effect because I didn't want him to look weird but it is tonemapped with 7 different exposures.

this is before

this is after

I don't mean to be a meany head but I got the same effect by just adjusting one Levels slider and one Highlight slider in PS Elements 3...

In Lightroom, -1.14 exposure, +16 contrast and set "Medium Contrast" on the tone curve.

Not 100% the same but very close and much faster.

The tonemapped owl looks much better though. I think the original could benefit from a bit less exposure.

belmondo wrote in post #4612467
Thought you might like to see what 12 locomotive looks like. There was no train....just locomotives.

Forgive the narrow DOF. I shot this with the 600.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Chief.. SUPERB!! I really like that shot. The bokeh makes the mountains behind the engines look like the sky and clouds. That coupled with the air currents swirling around makes it look very otherworldly, almost like the train framed against a great expanse of the sky, as if you were looking off the edge of the world and saw nothing but sky beyond the train. (even though this perspective is, obviously, physically impossible).

If I was manning the 600, this would be "The shot that makes it all worth while" - the purchase price, that is.

kumatron wrote in post #4612690
Frozen Trees!

Is this the day for good photos or what?

I love this shot and all the little air bubbles!

I sense a need for a cow.

Pete...that is one sorry looking cow!

Lightstream wrote in post #4613612
I was watching someone playing Final Fantasy (forget which instalment) on a Playstation the other day, and I couldn't help but think that the scenes obviously (they are) computer generated. In certain places there would be shadows beyond the DR of the human eye or sensor, but everything seems too evenly, too....perfectly.. lit.

creating light in 3d is a incredibly complex process and to be able to create semi realistic looking light you need far more render power than games consoles and PC's can provide. 3d work is massively limited by the power that the processers can put out throw a small set of 3d clouds in to a frame and you dump another 3 hours on to your render time.

Zilly wrote in post #4613645
creating light in 3d is a incredibly complex process and to be able to create semi realistic looking light you need far more render power than games consoles and PC's can provide. 3d work is massively limited by the power that the processers can put out throw a small set of 3d clouds in to a frame and you dump another 3 hours on to your render time.

Oh, of course, I understand. (was there at the dawn of the "3D" gaming revolution.. for those who were: 3dfx Voodoo1, Voodoo2, RIVA128, Matrox G200, G400, TNT2 M64, GeForce2GTS, Radeon 9000 - all have graced my personal workstations)

It's just that excessive tonemapping can make a normal photo have that computer-game-look. Of course, to each their own.. I prefer to avoid that look, that's all

Lightstream wrote in post #4613612
I was watching someone playing Final Fantasy (forget which instalment) on a Playstation the other day, and I couldn't help but think that the scenes obviously (they are) computer generated. In certain places there would be shadows beyond the DR of the human eye or sensor, but everything seems too evenly, too....perfectly.. lit.

Don't forget that you were viewing that on a TV screen, which invariable has a lower contrast than most decent monitors. The scenes were probably rendered and tested on high-quality monitors (maybe 1,000:1 contrast, I don't know) and optimised for use on the best equipment.

What you saw might not be representative of what was designed.

Pete wrote in post #4613666
Don't forget that you were viewing that on a TV screen, which invariable has a lower contrast than most decent monitors. The scenes were probably rendered and tested on high-quality monitors (maybe 1,000:1 contrast, I don't know) and optimised for use on the best equipment.

What you saw might not be representative of what was designed.

High performance LCD TV....

That isn't the point really. I've played many other computer games which have that 'look'..

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/3dfx

Aww man, the memories. The VGA passthru (which I disconnected, preferring to manually switch outputs when gaming, so as not to screw up my Matrox's superb 2D signal quality), the S3 ViRGE, ATI Rage IIc and Rage 2+...

We still have an ATI Rage floating around at the office - what used to be an entire graphics card now condensed into one tiny little BGA chip mounted in the guts of a Dell server to act as my text console - it runs UNIX with no GUI as per standard server config we use...

And the d$#k size comparisons.. the whining, the rivalry, the benchmarking and pixel peeping that makes anything in the camera world pale in comparison. That part I do not miss....!

Lightstream wrote in post #4613669
High performance LCD TV....

That isn't the point really. I've played many other computer games which have that 'look'..

Things always seem to look better on smaller screens. Take a big plasma and a tiny portable TV with the same picture, and the small screen will usually look brighter and crisper.

I know what you mean though. Excessive tone-mapping looks very artificial. I do it sometimes to bring up a flat looking shot (well, craply taken), but on the whole, I prefer to keep it real.

Pete wrote in post #4613686


Things always seem to look better on smaller screens. Take a big plasma and a tiny portable TV with the same picture, and the small screen will usually look brighter and crisper.

I know what you mean though. Excessive tone-mapping looks very artificial. I do it sometimes to bring up a flat looking shot (well, craply taken), but on the whole, I prefer to keep it real.

Yup.. not saying all tone mapping is bad - our own RRTP'ers have produced some very impressive shots - but as with anything, too much of a good thing..

I was thinking about getting this one printed on canvas

Wait.. a completely OOF shot?

Pete wrote in post #4613614
I sense a need for a cow.

http://www.the-aperture.com/EE/photos​/normal/IMG_2025.jpg

Dang Pete....that varmint looks like it has mange!