|
 |
And lo on Fri, 16 May 2008 19:23:17 +0100, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> You can try and fake it to an extent from the one image.
>
> lol, so we're up to a double fake now?
Heh well of course that's what HDR is supposed to be for, match what you
see with what you take. I think I posted these links before, but anyway -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1113600679
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65496354@N00/1276433203
The first is the unadulterated image, the second is one I adjusted and IMO
matches what I actually saw colour-wise. So is the second one a fake, if
it matches what the eye saw?
>> Does it look fake/better/worse?
>>
>
> That looks noticeably better, at least in terms of diminishingoverall
> bloom and getting getter saturation.
The only part that was changed was the lit building to drop it to the same
level as the surroundings. In theory I could have reversed the mask and
raised the levels to match the lit building, but I didn't even attempt
that I think it would have looked wrong.
> More skills for me to learn.
I think the trickiest bit to learn is how masks work, get that and the
rest is cake.
--
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
|
|
