And lo on Thu, 15 May 2008 20:47:11 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:52:42 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> 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'