Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i'm so glad we have Adobe, the world was shit looking before then.
try hardUzique The Lesser wrote:
looks great to me, non-HDR and everything
i did, and a 24mm ts-e lensRTHKI wrote:
you got a 6d :d
photography was a limp artform before hdr and expensive lenses
thank god for dslr's. now every asian tourist in the world can enliven the photographic arts with macro shots of flowers and restaurant meals.
burnzz do you not find HDR photography actually makes the world seem UNreal? all the high-bloom super-saturated shots i see on the internet make the world seem less realistic than a cgi rendering to me (i am not talking about the picture you just posted fyi)
thank god for dslr's. now every asian tourist in the world can enliven the photographic arts with macro shots of flowers and restaurant meals.
burnzz do you not find HDR photography actually makes the world seem UNreal? all the high-bloom super-saturated shots i see on the internet make the world seem less realistic than a cgi rendering to me (i am not talking about the picture you just posted fyi)
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-11 07:10:34)
a lot of hdr is shit yea. many do it when they have no idea what theyre doing.
this shit hdr got on flickr explore
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddidier/89 … otostream/
this shit hdr got on flickr explore
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddidier/89 … otostream/
Last edited by RTHKI (2013-07-11 07:27:14)
you and i see the world differently.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
burnzz do you not find HDR photography actually makes the world seem UNreal?
allow me to assume that you are 20/20 in both eyes, and your predilection for Wayfarers is an affectation rather than vision correction.
i am blind in one eye and had surgery on the other not long ago. i cannot see anything closer than the end of my hand without correction (reader glasses, if you will). i was born with a detached retina and the vision receptors have atrophied, thus freeing more brain cells to kill.
to answer your question, no - to me, hdr restores the range of contrast that a camera sensor cannot capture in one exposure, and i 'tone down' the effect of over saturation to restore something that looks more natural to me.
RTHKI, that graphic sums it up pretty well . . .
You should drop some acid before you are too blind to appreciate it.
burnzy wrote:
I have an opinion on something
uzique wrote:
I have a different opinion on something
burnzy + uzique wrote:
ALL. OUT. WAR.
burnzz i wear glasses and my wayfarers have prescription lenses in them. i'm short-sighted and one of my eyes actually has astigmatism. as a result one of my contact lens always has to be specially made to correct the slightly different curvature of my eye. however, this is pretty much a matter of taste, not visual ability. personally i think over-saturating and blooming the shit out of everything is kind of like the visual equivalent of wanting to experience all of life's emotions on coke. it's OTT.
and yea rthki that graphic is cool. imma actually save it.
and yea rthki that graphic is cool. imma actually save it.
uzique asked a reasonable question and i gave what i thought was a reasonable answer.pirana6 wrote:
ALL. OUT. WAR.
just because his opinion sucks doesn't mean his question did. it was the first civil thing he's said to me in a year, and i tried to respond in kind.
anyways, a good thing that has happened is my wife applied at Adobe (oh the irony), her current company countered with a 15% increase.
i could have gotten free software for lyfe . . .
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6567|Graz, Austria
You mean a password to a free cloud account of remote software.Steve-0 wrote:
i could have gotten free software for lyfe . . .
my opinion sucks because i think HDR looks shit? ok. most of flickr is terrible people with expensive lenses taking shitty and meaningless photos of flowers, or a banal vista (not everyone lives in utah, land of the lord's almighty horizon). i don't think my opinion sucks. i think my opinion is just calling it as it is: most photographers are people who think that sinking more money into expensive cameras and lenses will up their game. at least 10 years ago when everyone had crappy low-megapixel digital cameras, no one had the pretense of being 'a photographer'.
gotta get those angles
it's the technological equivalent of parker releasing a smoother ball-point pen and everyone thinking they're fucking flaubert.
gotta get those angles
it's the technological equivalent of parker releasing a smoother ball-point pen and everyone thinking they're fucking flaubert.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-11 15:21:00)
You are not a real photographer unless you are taking pictures in a war zone.
Fixed.Macbeth wrote:
You are not a real combat photographer unless you are taking pictures in a war zone.
hey rthki how's it going
yet
that's pretty good though
keep on not getting shot eh
that's pretty good though
keep on not getting shot eh
why do you have an opinion on a gaming mouse, a turntable or headphones?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i don't think my opinion sucks. i think my opinion is just calling it as it is: most photographers are people who think that sinking more money into expensive cameras and lenses will up their game.
i sink money into photography because i can. i do photography because i enjoy it. i share it because it gets feedback, good and bad, and your opinion sucks because you believe it to be the one and only truth, and use it to belittle and batter people with.
even though your opinion sucks, it doesn't mean that i agree with it. even though you can't tell california from utah shall i now pronounce you an idiot? no, because even feedback from people like you is valuable - if you can't or won't ignore my pictures, i'm doing something right.
thank you, uzique. you validate and encourage me to take more pictures, and i will show my gratitude by patronizing you.
Last edited by Steve-0 (2013-07-11 19:14:28)
where did i say that photo was taken in utah? i was being general talking about your vistas, trying to be kind (even though as a genre it's boring as shit). and where have i presented my opinion as the one and only truth? i simply said the habit of amateur photographers of smearing everything with HDR and bloom looks shit (obvious implied: in my opinion). it's technology over craft.
i also never asked you 'why you did photography'. i really don't care. i'm not belittling what you choose to do as a hobby. i'm talking about a trend in photography that is all over the internet, occasioned by technology.
thank you, burnzz. you say my head is up my ass but then arrogate every neutral comment and opinion to be about yourself.
i also never asked you 'why you did photography'. i really don't care. i'm not belittling what you choose to do as a hobby. i'm talking about a trend in photography that is all over the internet, occasioned by technology.
thank you, burnzz. you say my head is up my ass but then arrogate every neutral comment and opinion to be about yourself.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-07-11 19:28:04)
your welcome. high praise indeed from my number one fan!
I set foot in Jamaica yesterday. Literally set one foot, for about two seconds. Then I thought 'fuck this' and went home.
I like pie.
Its best to start with film TBHRTHKI wrote:
a lot of hdr is shit yea. many do it when they have no idea what theyre doing.
this shit hdr got on flickr explore
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddidier/89 … otostream/
Fuck Israel