>have decent photo op
>completely ruin it with shitty HDR
what did they mean by this?
>>2761118
Process your pics however you want.
>>2761118
the flowers are a little too bright, but it's not too awful as far as hdr goes.
I bet it would sell a lot of prints though.
>>2761118
It ain't bad, the colours are a bit too intense I think but hey, some people like that, and there is some weird "haze" over the trees caused by the HDR process
But I really think that an HDR would be the way to go to take this picture on a mid-range DSLR
>>2761152
>muh prints
>>2761165
what would the way to go be on a high end or low end dslr?
>>2761118
If it's for your own enjoyment then do whatever you want. As long as you're not shooting for a client or need to get it passed QC, etc, then just focus on what you think looks good. Too many photographers get hung up on giving a shit about what other people think.
>>2761118
i like this photo
>>2761118
that's not shitty HDR. this is shitty hdr
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2761333
mi eis
>>2761333
kill it with fire
>>2761333
the most amazing thing about this photo is that there is no watermark
>>2761333
>this thing is worse
>therefore that thing is good
no
>>2761118
Eh, I think it's pretty. All this shit is subjective anyway.
>>2761118
not bad, really
I could tell right away that this is a Marc Adamus photo. Honestly, on some level that's sort of a good thing because it means he has a style. This is becoming the new age of landscape photography and I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, I feel that in all honesty it is aesthetically pleasing. I find that the image is enjoyable to look at and that it promotes a dreamy idealistic view of the most incredible beauty of earth. This is the way we dream about nature in its most romantic way. The way he captures and processes his photos makes me want to be there. I recommend looking through the rest of Marc Adamus's work to get an idea of what I'm going to talk about here. Right away, you can see that he is most certainly capturing unique angles and views of truly amazing locations that are not the common icons. This guy puts a serious amount of effort to get to insane locations that hardly see anyone and he also works to capture them in good light with compelling compositions. You can't deny that the effort is real, the locations are real, and that he is going out and doing something different.
On the other hand, the editing bends all ideas of reality and borderlines digital art. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are many people going towards this style of editing. The feeling that everything must be perfectly exposed and there's that "glow" to the highlights that comes from exposing it ten stops lower than the foreground and blending it together meticulously. To me, this is far far better than the second HDR example posted in this thread where you just throw a bunch of exposures into Photomatix and push a button. Luckily, I think that sort of HDR is mostly on its way out and I see much less than I used to five years ago. This stuff is carefully done by hand, well sorta by hand but on a computer. It's the cutting edge of what landscape photography is now. Anyone open for a serious discussion about this?
>>2761672
My comment got too long, but I also want to add that I'm a slide film guy which sort of makes me a purist, though I of course use layer masks and color correction to get the best scans possible. A blend of new and old techniques if you will. At some point people will take advantage of the current technology and new things will come out of it. The choice is to stay a purist or ride the waves?
>>2761674
>ride the waves
Ride the waves by all means but I agree with op, the picture looks horrible. In fact the location doesn't even look real, is it a montage?
it looks like the most beautiful video game graphics. if that was his goal then he achieved it. it definitely is a way of making the picture look graphical that i didn't see so far.
it doesn't rly fit my personal taste though, i like art way more "dry" in general, this picture is more like some overproduced k-pop song.
>>2761672
thanks for your post
>>2761118
This isn't how I'd process this image to a T but I don't think it's poorly executed.
>hating on HDR
Want to know how everyone knows you just got a camera for Christmas and are trying desperately to fit in around here?
Test
>>2761832
On my phone and it just said I was banned on Nov 28th for a post on a board I've never been on (/int/) and that my ban has been lifted now...The fuck?
>>2761835
That'd be an IP ban. Somebody in your IP range broke the rules and got banned so it hit you too. Happens a lot.
I noticed whenever I try to post on 4chan, it says the IP I'm trying to post from has been blocked because of repeated offenses. This has happened the past 2-3 times I tried posting from my phone, and in locations that were 15-25 miles apart. Strange.
>>2761118
I agree. Weird haze and wonky tones. It's amazing how many professional photographers allow visible artifacts of post-processing and lens abberations in their final photos, and don't see anything wrong with that shit. HDR will always have artifacts, even "tasteful" versions are simply unusable because of the weirda shit that happens to the tones. Just manually blend or use a GND.
>>2761118
>have decent photo op
ehh it's okay
>completely ruin it with shitty HDR
Maybe it's to sell to a calendar company or some shit. It's not your picture, why do you care?
I think there's room in the world for a stylized, dreamy photo that's over-saturated for effect in a technicolor sort of way. I like the OP's photo except for the garish tone-mapping of the foreground plants.
I think if you tone that down, it's a pretty nice photo, although not my personal taste.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1498 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:06 00:28:34 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1498
>>2761672
I enjoyed reading this, thanks anon
>>2761672
I pretty much agree with you, but this image, in my opinion, has been pushed too far. It's too flat for my liking with fuck all standout highlights from the midground to the sky which ruined a great opportunity to get better texture out of that mountain range and forest. He's lost a real sense of drama there. Also the peak looks out of gamut and blown - i'm not sure if this was exposure or processing related (though probably a mix of both), but it looks so flat here it kills all sense of drama just at the point where it feels like the drama should peak. The colour cast in the whites of the snow could be toned down a bit as well. The misting in the flare-prone areas could definitely be fixed as well but that's my personal taste, I know some people get into it.
Still a pretty great image though. Composition, location, time of day are incredible. He's still a good photographer and I don't think it's an inherently bad processing method, I think this guy just needs to learn to moderate himself a bit more. It's always going to be subjective though.
>>2761867
Holy kek, what have you shot that's better? Let's see your definition and example of 'decent'.
>>2761199
MEDIUM FORMAT
E
D
I
U
M
F
O
R
M
A
T
>>2761333
>sun is darker than highlights in the top right
>clouds are black
holy tonemapping, batman
