Re: Question for you

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #373,661 by pwhysall 4/9/13 12:19:00 PM Reply	Re: Question for you Photomatix and then a stupid artsy-fartsy filter. All hiding the fact that he fucked up his exposure in the first place. But hey, people love that shit. Who am I to argue?
Post #373,664 by drook 4/9/13 1:19:58 PM Reply	Scott's link showed mostly composites from multiple images I've seen how to do HDR that way. The link I posted, it looked like he was saying it was a single image. And yes, I thought the exposure sucked. -- Drew
Post #373,667 by pwhysall 4/9/13 2:35:53 PM Reply	HDR doesn't necessitate multiple exposures although it's the most common way of doing it. Tone-mapping and whatnot can be done with one, two or a gazillion exposures.

A change of pace for me - (pwhysall) - (9) - April 8, 2013, 10:11:24 PM EDT

Nice. Shiny. - (Another Scott) - April 8, 2013, 10:31:22 PM EDT

I am persuaded - (Ashton) - (1) - April 9, 2013, 05:15:54 AM EDT

I cannot resist pointing out... - (altmann) - April 9, 2013, 07:17:38 PM EDT

Question for you - (drook) - (4) - April 9, 2013, 11:01:00 AM EDT

Not Peter, but ... - (Another Scott) - April 9, 2013, 11:22:51 AM EDT

Re: Question for you - (pwhysall) - (2) - April 9, 2013, 12:19:00 PM EDT

Scott's link showed mostly composites from multiple images - (drook) - (1) - April 9, 2013, 01:19:58 PM EDT

HDR doesn't necessitate multiple exposures - (pwhysall) - April 9, 2013, 02:35:53 PM EDT

Nice - (jake123) - April 9, 2013, 09:35:52 PM EDT

Solar-powered!
40 ms