Sa ei ole sisse loginud.
just wondering, i have looked a landscape pics in this site, and yes many of those looks very nice. But too many looks like HDR picture ? Is it true that many of you likes to play with photoshop etc. or is this just my imagination ?
Eemal
Milliseid pilte täpsemalt mõtled? Mõned näited näiteks. Huvituks isegi.
Eemal
Eemal
Hehee, see on minu pilt Ma pole kunagi HDR-i isegi katsetanud. Siin on kasutatud digikiilu.
Eemal
Ootan veel näiteid.
Selle konkreetne pildi saab ilma photoshopita küll ju "valmistada".
Eemal
..ah. autor jõudis ette:)
Eemal
kiilu = Polarisationfilter ? Colors are just un-natural for my eye..but picture is very nice. Anyway this HDR is very interesting, but must be announced if pic is made using this method. Just my 10 cents.
Eemal
Here is 17 page tutorial if interested....
http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm
Eemal
Eemal
alari kirjutas:
Polarisatsioon + kiil.
What is this Kiil ? Vabandan et mu eesti keel on väga halb.
Eemal
Kiil is something like that http://www.photopoint.ee/toode.php?id=14640 but made in photoshop. Vabanda, minu inglise keel on väga halb
Eemal
Eemal
Ooh, selge
Eemal
Küsiks siin kohe mis te arvate HDR-ist? Nii eetilises või subjektiivses mõtes.
Iseenesest ju natuke enamat kui lihtsalt digikiil. Et kas siis puhtakujuline töötlus või läheb veel looduspildi kirja?
Fire at will.
Eemal
Btw, kepa, you said it would be nice to mention HDR - actually we have had many discussions over HDR and so called digitally graduated neutral density filter, and many of us keep mention if something like these have been used. You may also take a look here: http://looduspilt.ee/foorum/viewtopic.php?id=2296
A good example of using no HDR but three filters is here: http://looduspilt.ee/index.php?page=pilt&id=11116
Have you seen timecatcher.com photos? If not, you should, 'cause there are many marvellous landscapes and helpful information of used techniques (filters etc).
Eemal
Mariann kirjutas:
Btw, kepa, you said it would be nice to mention HDR - actually we have had many discussions over HDR and so called digitally graduated neutral density filter, and many of us keep mention if something like these have been used. You may also take a look here: http://looduspilt.ee/foorum/viewtopic.php?id=2296
A good example of using no HDR but three filters is here: http://looduspilt.ee/index.php?page=pilt&id=11116
Have you seen timecatcher.com photos? If not, you should, 'cause there are many marvellous landscapes and helpful information of used techniques (filters etc).
My point was no attack to anyone, but in general i think its nice if told when things like that has been made into picture. In etical, i dont think those (HDR) are a natural pictures anymore and im bit sceptic also for photoshop filters used in. But its digital time right ?
Eemal
Btw. marvelous picture ... http://looduspilt.ee/index.php?page=pilt&id=11116
But please talk about your toughts about HDR and other digitally re-made pictures.
Eemal
Damn, just looked that link about HDR and in forum is not edit possibility for my message , sorry. Im quiet now ...
Eemal
We do not consider Photoshop filters and other digital manipulations (e.g. erasing critical objects) as actual nature photos. Although we do accept using physical grad filters and others (uv, pola, skylight, etc) that improve the possibility to create natural final photos.
Eemal
Mariann kirjutas:
We do not consider Photoshop filters and other digital manipulations (e.g. erasing critical objects) as actual nature photos. Although we do accept using physical grad filters and others (uv, pola, skylight, etc) that improve the possibility to create natural final photos.
Good to hear
Eemal
Sorry for forgetting one more thing that I should add to my last post as all the discussion begun beacause of the term "digikiil" used by Alari. By digital graduated neutral density filter (digikiil) we mean digital grad filter. It's basically the same thing as the physical grad filter and it hasn't anything to do with Photoshop effect filters.
Eemal
Eemal
Võtaks siin sama seisukoha, mis Juhan selles arutelus .
Kuna inimsilma dünaamiline ulatus on ikka tunduvalt suurem kui digisensori oma siis HDR õigustab end niikaua kui püütakse jäljendada looduslikku olukorda. Enamasti saab sama teha kiilfiltritega kuid mõnedel ekstreemjuhtudel on HDR lihtsam.
I wolud take the same standpoint as Juhan in this thread.
Because the human eyes dynamic range is much greater the any digital camera HDR was its uses as long as a truthful representation of the natural situation is strived for. In most cases the same can be used with grad filters but in some extreme cases HDR is easyer to use.
Ei teagi enam mis keeles kirjutada.
Eemal