Whitehouse photo

tonydee wrote in post #7652026
I don't understand what you're trying to achieve... the scene may not have enough dynamic range to require HDR treatment, and if it does, it'd probably be better to reshoot at a time of day or in weather where the lighting's less harsh. This just doesn't quite look right, and I don't see that it's achieving any artistic purpose either. Cheers, Tony

Agreed. I like the photo but HDR seems wholly unnecessary. With softer lighting you could get a "better" shot without HDR.

RiKaN HaVoK wrote in post #7654340
is the white house ... you know how many people take pictures of if on a daily basis?

you should have read his last entry before saying that, because there was a mistake on his upload that did not upload his photo.
i had that exact picture on my desktop background , but someone photoshopped some whitesox emblems on it.....
thats why i knew for a fact that it was not his photo.

RiKaN HaVoK wrote in post #7655206
you are totally clueless to what I was trying to imply I think ..

read what I quoted then read my reply then put 1+1 and it should = 2

I think you are totally clueless at what Aaron was trying to imply I think ..

Anyway... photo seems oversaturated.

I take back my previous statement now that the correct photo is up. Looks good! The dynamic range is lacking a little. How many exposures did you take and how far apart? I'd do 5 exposures 1 stop apart to give more room to adjust.

Again, it looks good though.

It was just 3 exposures - just a quick bracketed shot on foot while I was touring DC...