 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2016 08:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-2-2016 20:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
>> fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
>
> You're hooked. No doubt about it.
It's true. :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/02/2016 07:04 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I like DSC0078
Ah, one of the ones I accidentally over-exposed. Yeah, most of them were
just ruined, but a few of them just look really sunny, which is kind of
appealing.
> And the water scenes
Yeah, even on this grey day, they came out quite well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>>> real world). But you cannot have both.
>>
>> Take multiple exposures, merge them into a single HDR image, then do
>> suitable tonemapping to see both the brightly lit scenery and bright
>> sparkles together.
>
> To my untrained eyes, it appears that the only way to make the light
> spots look light is to make everything else dark.
I think one of the tricks with HDR type tonemapping is that you can keep
the local contrast correct all over the image (which makes bright things
look bright) but the "exposure" can vary across the image. This photo is
a bit extreme, but you get the idea that the sun still looks bright and
the "shade" areas don't look black:
http://11718-presscdn-0-16.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hdr-76.jpg
>> Or you can get one of those "sparkly light" filters that make even weak
>> lights sparkle.
>
> Yeah, I wonder if they still make those...
I got one a couple of years back for my camera, and it seems they also
use them on pretty much any TV show recorded in a studio.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
