Simple... He didn't host them on the CS gallery, which has pretty strict filesize limits.
If you reduce a large image to a small size and *then* run a mild sharpen on it in photoshop, then upload it to photobucket (which doesn't restrict your file size or impose additional compression) then you can get that too.
The lighting there re dimmer....if u come to Aus in spring or summer...u'll face another issue...too bright...lol. Way brighter than sg.
overexposed at iso100, F8, 1/2000 - was using powershot at that time...haven't got my dslr...
It's the photographer that matters more - quality of the shot depends on how he react to the environment and his tools
Hi, to share something i found on the internet, and relating to these 2 lines from Marc relating to images 1 and 2
check out this link which shed some light on how to process a single image, but optimized on it's foreground and background. this is, however, on a jpg, and it was only limited to brightness and contrast, when more could be done. it would be better if you have a raw file. the steps would be quite similar.1: Sunrise, clearing snowstorm, Many Glacier region. Peaceful, yes, though it was taken in 40mph winds and driving sleet. 16mm, 2-stop GND, 1/10 sec. at f/14. Sky/Land processed seperately in RAW and Blended at varying opacities for best color rendition.
2. Climbed down a cliff just off Going-to-the-Sun road to get this perspective. 2 stacked 3-stop GND's gives the strong magenta, which I like. Blended from 1 other exposure on either side to prevent total loss of details. 16mm, 4 seconds at f/14.
Hope more people are inspired to shoot now. I think I have found some answers, but still needs lots of practise, and shooting. thank you all for contributing.
and there are many, many pictures there that have little to do with the sun.
i'll have to disagree with you here; behind every beautifully lit picture there are 10 failed visits.
for an idea of what i mean, look at kahkityoong's photograph here - how many photographers on cs would just turn and walk away simply because "got no yolk wor".
Last edited by night86mare; 17th November 2008 at 04:22 PM.
resize to twice the size of the final size you upload to web, sharpen TWICE using photoshop cs2 filter --> sharpen --> sharpen tool (i suppose he doesn't do any sharpening before that)..
then resize to the size you want. it works wonders for web uploading; i'm told that it does nothing for printing though.. naturally.
i got to see adam burton's works in print recently; they look even better that way. you should check him out too.
thanks for your invaluable insights. i'm trying to keep this thread away of debate of photographers' skills, environment, composition, etc. I have seen other threads spiral out of control with such discussions.
hence i post this in digital darkroom, hoping to learn some techniques that may come in handy for my use (and other newbies alike). while learning techniques are important, knowing when and how to apply it is just as important, hence practise and repeated failures will soon come in.
no, this thread is not about trying to re-produce such shots in Singapore. but who knows, we all travel sometimes, we might come across similar settings, and you just never know...
Thanks david.... hi to all, but are these photos considered HDR?? bec. Ive seen HDR photos that seem unnatural and this samples images are close to reality..TIA
that's what makes this so interesting.
alternatively, some may call it manual hdr blending. not only RAW files can be used, a separate exposure with different jpgs can also be used. layering work, etc.. but of course needs a very good eye and imagination and visualisation to end up with a good end product. as well as good expertise with photoshop.
realkuhl on flickr is another one that uses such technique. it is hard to show online how to do it actually.. unless one uses masks , etc.. and i have done it before, but didn't keep the originals else would be easier to illustrate,.
wow! I'm lost....... need to search a lot guys.. Thanks for all the info...
both hdr and dri have an increase in dynamic range - more than what the camera is able to perceive, closer to what the EYE can perceive.
why hdr photos usually end up looking unnatural is because a lot (too much) people favour the overdone,overpushed outputs from the usual hdr program (photomatix). it has somehow become mistaken as the "hdr look".
photomatix can produce natural results as well, but i also do not like it because it tends to look a wee bit cg, and is not as customisable as the dri (or manual blending) method.
this is a photomatix output massaged in photoshop; i did not use dri here because it was really too hard (too many details, and much too much time for something that isn't that great in the first place)..
and this is also photomatix, but a lot more burn/dodge work and layering was done to make it look natural (i hope)
compared to this, which is manual blending
in short, for the last picture there were 3 exposures, one for the sky above the jetty, one for the water flows, one for the rock details. stacked them in photoshop and then slowly erase, adjust layer opacity, etc.. with a soft brush. i remember this took me quite a while. no filters were used.
of course none of these reach anything as great as what marc adamus or adam burton do. btw emlee if you haven't already, please check out the whole of timecatcher team. all of them are solid landscape photographers which are inspirational in their own right.