interesting comparison of bad pictures (Nikon, processing, cameras, shots)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what i did is take a rather mundane shot of a scene on a day where it was just impossible to take a picture without either over exposing the skys or crushing the darker areas. the light was just as horrible as could be.
picture 1 was shot with a nikon d80 at zero compensation and is the best overall shot i could get. typically this is the shot you would walk away with,pretty crappy,everything is washed out.
i then took 2 more shots at +2 and -2 exposures, brought them into photomatix and fused all 3 together. got kind of a super exposure, no enhancements or light inversions done.
that is photo 2, its called exposure fusion.
photo 3 is 3 exposures put together and enhanced using light inversions and is a full hdr pushed a little in the inversions area...
overall picture 2 is probley the nicest of the 3 being very natural and very extended but not as showy, un-natural and flashy as the enhanced hdr in 3.
i picked these pictures because normally i would delete these shots but i used them as examples of what you can do with bad exposures and shots
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-25-2009 at 03:01 AM..
none, as our eyes see at ratios of contrast, color and sharpening that our cameras only dream about but i would have to say #2 .... remember contrast,saturation and sharpening though in digital are all subject to the curve either built into your camera or what you use later on... there is no such thing as a color curve that comes out of the camera that matches what you see ....... you have to create it so it is all very subjective.
Every camera has different levels of contrast, sharpeness and saturation built in... you cant have an image without it.....
how it compares to the origional is tough to say as it varies with white balance and lighting too
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-25-2009 at 08:10 AM..
It's nice to see what can be done with a throwaway shot. Thanks for sharing this.
I often save my bad shots, either to use later when I've learned more about post-processing or to turn into photo art, which always require a good photo to begin with. Also, looking at a folder of your bad photos keeps you humble!
heres another comparison, i chose to use this photo not because its a good composition, which its not but because it had so many different parts to it where differences can be seen. pay particular attention to the trees on the left and the sky
photo 1 is the unedited raw straight of of camera, boring, dark shadows not visible , this was the best exposure out of 5 i could get . if i wasnt using hdr this would be my basic picture before playing around trying to make it
all purdy, however that shadow information in the trees on left are gone .
photo 2 is one exposure only enhanced in photomatix
photo 3 is 5 pictures merged , a little level and curves and sharpening
photo 4 is full blown 5 pictures in hdr using detail enhancer mode
i think has the most natural potential if you spend time editing it further, 4 is flashy and showy but isnt natural at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.