The basic purpose, at least in my mind, of using HDR is to increase the dynamic range of a photo beyond what the technology can enable you to do in a single exposure. At its extremes, you can get some pretty interesting/bizarre effects with the technique, but that seems to me to be what most people complain about with HDR photos.
I am assuming that you want to increase the dynamic range of your image, and not create an impressionistic look. What about your photo made you want to "increase" that dynamic range? Your photo shows a red car in the woods, on a sunny day. You could use HDR to enable us to see what is going on inside the car, or if the sky were a prominent feature in the composition, you could give us highly detailed clouds up above. All the effect seemed to do to your image was distort colors and blur details. If that is what you were attempting to do, I have no complaint. Would I have preferred a single, properly exposed image to this highly doctored one? Quite likely, but I don't know for sure.
I just keep asking myself, why did he want to use HDR here?
--- In MyOlympus@yahoogroups.com, "Gales, Edwin" <edwin_gales@...> wrote:
...
> Result can be seen at www.flickr.com/pedroiho/photos<http://www.flickr.com/pedroiho/photos> under HDR set.
>
> Comments and Critics are welcome. Will try to explore more of HDR mostly on my landscape shots.
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment