Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Whoa information overload. I just use normal Raw. As said, they're just presets that do **** all.
Also, i disagree with whoever said HDR is crap. That's exactly what 90% of my images are. Except, i dont do it with different exposures. I use pseudo hdr. IMO it looks mint.
Non pseudo.
Mazda SP20 by Photographs_by_Ben, on Flickr
Pseudo. Clearly the same image. However, sun was too harsh so it still remains some white. But its clearly more defined.
Mazda SP20- Re-edit by Photographs_by_Ben, on Flickr |
that's not really HDR... these results can be achieved with a combination of ND filter, under exposure (half a step to full step), shooting in raw, and fine tuning shadows/highlights, and further adjustments through masking
I can get the same results without HDR using those techniques
as shot, there wasn't much you could've really done to make it look much better... the highlights are blown out in the sky... there's no data to use to bring back any details, which is why ND filters and under exposure comes to play
the issue at hand is, the camera's light meter doesn't know what to do with such great contrast between your black car and bright background... so it tries to do what it thinks is best, over expose it.... that pic is over exposed mate... looking at it in high res, I can see that... are you using Active D-Lighting/Highlight Tone Priority? Disabling it could help. Using matrix metering instead of spot metering could also help if you're not.
Do you mind posting the EXIF data of the original pic so that I could see for sure what went wrong? Not trying to criticise, just trying to help!
