|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
And lo on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:47:11 +0100, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospam com> did spake, saying:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>>> composite the pictures together.
>>
>> Somehow I have never liked that type of post-processing in
>> photography.
>> It gives me the feeling that the photo has been faked.
>>
>> It's a bit like you took an image rendered with povray and then added
>> some lens flare effect with photoshop and then called it a "povray
>> image". Yes, part of the image was made with povray, but part of the
>> effect has been "faked", so it's not a pure povray image. It feels kind
>> of cheating.
>
> I think it depends on how well the compositing is done - most people
> don't do a good job with it, though, so it tends to look faked.
>
> But if not a composite, then what would be the way to get rid of the
> bloom in the window without losing the details in the darker parts of the
> image?
You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image. Here I created a
gradient mask centred on the lighter building and then tweaked the
histogram levels to match it in tone to the surroundings while keeping the
struts visible. It was only a quickie about two minutes tops, with more
time and more tweaking it would be possible to do more. Does it look
fake/better/worse?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '0119a.jpg' (66 KB)
Preview of image '0119a.jpg'
![0119a.jpg](/povray.off-topic/attachment/%3Cop.ua8wafq2c3xi7v%40news.povray.org%3E/0119a.jpg?preview=1)
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |