Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Activity : All Comments

  • Thank you, guys!
    I will surely proceed according to your advices (post-sharpening?).
    However Justin made me check upload size limits and... bingo. Something has changed - a year ago 100K file weight was allowed for non-members, now it is 70K. And I am still stubbornly sending 100K files.
    This is embarrassing a bit.
    Thank you.
  • I'm getting more and more frustrated.
    Almost every time I upload a photo I can notice it gets quite soapy blurred in the epz gallery. Despite the fact the original image (viewed from the hard disc) is pin sharp. I use Photoshop and typically resize photos using Save for Web & Devices dialog with Bicubic Sharper option checked. I also tried to resize them first to required dimensions (Image>Image Size) and later on Save for Web... (to change resolution and compression level). I tried different sequences as well. No matter how I try most of my pictures get blurred after uploading.
    I'll be very grateful if anyone can explain how to get pin sharp image in the gallery. What do I do wrong? This can't be so complicated (well, I started thinking I'm retard).
  • As I noticed some guys think that HDR is a kind of shortcut - easy and effortless way:

    Quote:Perhaps the comment was not put across in the correct way for you, but they do have a point in as much as balancing the exposure etc. yourself is much more satisfying than taking taking a series of shots at different exposures and letting the software sort it out.

    What can I say? I sometimes try to use HDR soft (Photomatix) but effects are rather poor so I don't show them to anybody. Simple lack of experience in using software. I also tried "handmade" HDR by blending different exposures with advanced masking in Photoshop - much better final effect but it's such bloody arduous and time-consuming work. I'm afraid I'm too lazy for thatWink
    "Letting the software sort it out"? FORGET IT.
  • I simply thought that people who can't stand HDR images are concerned about truth in the image. So I tried to point out that even traditional photography is not able to show reality as it is.
    But I have slight feeling they are about traditional photography workshop - metering the light, calculating aperture stops... blood, sweat and tears.
  • Anna, I used word "cheat" after Adam. Now I know I should have used word "falsify". I said the same about photography. And I can say that about any other form of visual art. Each creative act (no matter - painting, shooting photographs, whatever) consist of choosing fragments of reality, arranging and altering them to get final image which is far from reality itself.
  • HDR is cheating and Photoshop is cheating - no doubt. But such an argument is based upon belief that "raw" photography says always truth about the world. Which is wrong assumption! You've got shutter button under your finger and you choose right moment to press it. You decide what should be placed within the frame. And you always make decisions purposely.
    Moreover using camera we are prisoners of central perspective. Parallel lines never meet in reality they always meet on the picture.
    Actually photography is based on cheating.
  • I've just found pretty bizarre comment under one of the pictures in the gallery:
    "Tonal range is full & saturated colours look lovely. Composition leads eye into frame. Only suggestion might be to cut a very small amount of floor out.
    I hope this want an HDR shot cos if it is, I take everything I just said right back. HDR is a poor & mischevious substitute for photographic light control & management.
    Im keeping my vote til you promise its not an HDR shot."

    Well, I'm amazed. I always thought the final artistic effect is the most important. Technical issues or workshop are only the way to achieve such effect. There are pros and cons of using HDR software, there are pros and cons of switching to digital imaging (we surely can shoot photos using film cameras or even pinhole cameras) but finally we end up with image. The viewer is to judge if our image works and if we did good job. And in my opinion it has nothing to do with gear and software used (if it was used properly of course).
    Wondering what you think. Is "HDR poor & mischievous substitute"?