The rock kind of ooks like a skull that's buried beneath the ground a ways. Looks neat.

I have yet to try HD photos!

This post was edited by Chantal7 on Aug 26 2011 07:03pm

I go over golf course stuff

60-70 images went into this bad boy. 9235x4207 @ 300ppi. Can anyone say big print? lol



Maybe I shouldn't mentioned my techniques again haha

This post was edited by lithfkn on Aug 26 2011 07:14pm

I enjoy looking at the well done ones because they make for more compelling imagery imo which is great for advertising. I'm not giving up on HDR yet

I took a bunch more from around work today that I'll post up after editing them later.

I agree. especially when people aren't portrayed.

See how I had to blend 4-5 exposures per frame?

Medium format digital can do that in one shot lol

mhm I can do 3 automatically at +2 0 and -2 then I can manually do -1 and +1

for now I'm just doing +2 0 and -2 though. What are the benefits of using more exposures if you get the entire scene in the histogram?

edit I'm pretty much doing HDR straight off of trey ratcliff's tutorial, so if anybody has anymore suggestions I'd really appreciate it.

This post was edited by bygdubdiesel on Aug 26 2011 08:51pm

I do -2 -1 0 +1 +2

That way i am ensuring fine detail over 5 stops.

Doing too much ie. (-4 +4) can make a scene look very wrong. Plus tone mapping also makes a scene look very wrong.

I use Photomatix and only use expsoure blending, not tone mapping.

Hmmmm really. Can you explain what you mean by "very wrong"? Do you mean somewhat "unnatural"?

By very wrong I mean unnatural. It works with some shots, maybe a couple, but most of it looks too unnatural.