Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[CyMek]

BTW Cymek I realised what exactly the first pic reminds me of: early national geographic nature photography, say circa 40's -to mid 50's. If I had taken the second one I would have had to remove the powerlines with photoshop. For some reason I find them distracting.

I know it would be a sublime nature photo without the powerlines, and it occurred to me that I could do it easily enough but I like the message it sends better with them in.

 

[BillyBadAss]

Sakura Daydream

 

[Emmet Otter]

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

Damn, Otter.
So where can I buy prints of these and how expensive are they?

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

oooo old architecture, now my interest is deffinately piqued.

 

[Slainchild]

I really don't like the over-processed HDR look, but the mood and composition in some of those is nice.

 

[Emmet Otter]

Nah, none for sale

I understand people not liking the overprocessed hdr but, it is something new that ive been trying out and am enjoying it.

Thanks for the comments people

 

[T2A`]

Let's get some HDR cleavage going, eh?

 

[igNiTion]

I really don't like the over-processed HDR look, but the mood and composition in some of those is nice.

Gotta agree.. I like the shots, but not the processing.
Would love to have an original one to edit to see what else could be made out of it.

 

[Igoy]

I don't know, I'm inclined to disagree. I've seen some hideous HDR in the past, but this, in its context, is actually quite nice. Particularly on the buildings.

 

[OO7MIKE]

My personal favorites.
Excellent framing with the trees in the first one.
Love the dramatic clouds in the 2nd one.

 

[pine]

I don't know, I'm inclined to disagree. I've seen some hideous HDR in the past, but this, in its context, is actually quite nice. Particularly on the buildings.

Yeah fosho. It seems to be pretty well done here and adds a new layer to the theme. I mean, how many pictures of old churches have you seen?

I couldn't bring myself to criticize anything Emmett_Otter does though, because his username is from a character in one of my favorite childhood books.

 

[Crotale]

Emmett, I like the images but I don't know if I quite like how the "HDR" effect is applied on all them, with this one being the exception. IMO, when overused, the HDR effect gives the image an artificial air about it. For example, this image, the effect makes it lose most of its depth of field. Isn't HDR supposed to augment the image's lighting and thus make it appear more realistic?

To be perfectly honest, since I am brand spanking new to photography, I seem to get caught up in over-processing my images. However, I do not get why this method of over-processing is even called HDR, since it can be derived from a single image (HDR requires a bracketed set of at minimum two, preferably three, images of varying exposures). The effect can be easily invoked in Photoshop using the Highpass filter processing of a Hard Light layer blended copy of the original layer. The lighter areas bring in more ambient lighting to the darker original ares and provides a crisper image overall. When mixing this process with an HDR merged bracketed image set, the resulting image is a greatly exaggerated effect, the result of which may appear to be over-processed.

Meh, could be I'm just rambling, but I guess my own conclusion is that HDR processing should enhance the realism to the effect that the imagery appears to be literally surreal but is still believable. The issue for me is that sometimes this process removes too much of the lighting and shading differential, thus leaving imagery that is too flat in appearance, save for some of the texturing, such as the tree limbs and church's bricks (which are oddly enhanced compared to the remaining information). My guess that if I saw a print of these processed images, they would be similar to those relief paintings I've seen in some art galleries. I digress that it is more a style than anything else. Or, maybe I just don't understand what the hell I'm talking about.

 

[BillyBadAss]

Emmett, I like the images but I don't know if I quite like how the "HDR" effect is applied on all them, with this one being the exception. IMO, when overused, the HDR effect gives the image an artificial air about it. For example, this image, the effect makes it lose most of its depth of field. Isn't HDR supposed to augment the image's lighting and thus make it appear more realistic?

To be perfectly honest, since I am brand spanking new to photography, I seem to get caught up in over-processing my images. However, I do not get why this method of over-processing is even called HDR, since it can be derived from a single image (HDR requires a bracketed set of at minimum two, preferably three, images of varying exposures). The effect can be easily invoked in Photoshop using the Highpass filter processing of a Hard Light layer blended copy of the original layer. The lighter areas bring in more ambient lighting to the darker original ares and provides a crisper image overall. When mixing this process with an HDR merged bracketed image set, the resulting image is a greatly exaggerated effect, the result of which may appear to be over-processed.

Meh, could be I'm just rambling, but I guess my own conclusion is that HDR processing should enhance the realism to the effect that the imagery appears to be literally surreal but is still believable. The issue for me is that sometimes this process removes too much of the lighting and shading differential, thus leaving imagery that is too flat in appearance, save for some of the texturing, such as the tree limbs and church's bricks (which are oddly enhanced compared to the remaining information). My guess that if I saw a print of these processed images, they would be similar to those relief paintings I've seen in some art galleries. I digress that it is more a style than anything else. Or, maybe I just don't understand what the hell I'm talking about.

I think you are right in your statement. I am not a big HDR fan, but I do find the ones that aren't over processed interesting. In the end it is art, so it's up to the person creating it.

 

[Zur]

Nah, none for sale

If those pictures from me and they have a unique enough look to them to form a sort of "signature", I wouldn't hesitate a second to offer prints. It's not expensive producing them and they'd look even nicer in picture frames, ready to hang on the wall.

 

[TomWithTheWeather]

Emmett, I like the images but I don't know if I quite like how the "HDR" effect is applied on all them, with this one being the exception. IMO, when overused, the HDR effect gives the image an artificial air about it. For example, this image, the effect makes it lose most of its depth of field. Isn't HDR supposed to augment the image's lighting and thus make it appear more realistic?

To be perfectly honest, since I am brand spanking new to photography, I seem to get caught up in over-processing my images. However, I do not get why this method of over-processing is even called HDR, since it can be derived from a single image (HDR requires a bracketed set of at minimum two, preferably three, images of varying exposures). The effect can be easily invoked in Photoshop using the Highpass filter processing of a Hard Light layer blended copy of the original layer. The lighter areas bring in more ambient lighting to the darker original ares and provides a crisper image overall. When mixing this process with an HDR merged bracketed image set, the resulting image is a greatly exaggerated effect, the result of which may appear to be over-processed.

Meh, could be I'm just rambling, but I guess my own conclusion is that HDR processing should enhance the realism to the effect that the imagery appears to be literally surreal but is still believable. The issue for me is that sometimes this process removes too much of the lighting and shading differential, thus leaving imagery that is too flat in appearance, save for some of the texturing, such as the tree limbs and church's bricks (which are oddly enhanced compared to the remaining information). My guess that if I saw a print of these processed images, they would be similar to those relief paintings I've seen in some art galleries. I digress that it is more a style than anything else. Or, maybe I just don't understand what the hell I'm talking about.

Yeah, that's about how I feel about that style of HDR.

 

[igNiTion]

I don't know, I'm inclined to disagree. I've seen some hideous HDR in the past, but this, in its context, is actually quite nice. Particularly on the buildings.

I think it makes them look fake, like in a video game. I agree there are some hideous HDR images out there.

 

[Emmet Otter]

My personal favorites.
Excellent framing with the trees in the first one.
Love the dramatic clouds in the 2nd one.

I love that church shot as well. thats why I shared a larger size of it

Yeah fosho. It seems to be pretty well done here and adds a new layer to the theme. I mean, how many pictures of old churches have you seen?

I couldn't bring myself to criticize anything Emmett_Otter does though, because his username is from a character in one of my favorite childhood books.

'there aint no hole in the washtub'
My favortae jim henson character!

Emmett, I like the images but I don't know if I quite like how the "HDR" effect is applied on all them, with this one being the exception. IMO, when overused, the HDR effect gives the image an artificial air about it. For example, this image, the effect makes it lose most of its depth of field. Isn't HDR supposed to augment the image's lighting and thus make it appear more realistic?

There is no right or wrong to photography imo. It's all on how you like your photos. And as long as you like doing what you're doing, thats all that matters

I don't know, I'm inclined to disagree. I've seen some hideous HDR in the past, but this, in its context, is actually quite nice. Particularly on the buildings.

I myself have seen waaay over-processed hdr photos from other sites that also did'nt appeal to me as well. This is the reason I try to limit the processesing. Not all the photos I just shared above im happy with 100%, but my favs are the buildings. They did come out damn good. I'm still practicing

I think you are right in your statement. I am not a big HDR fan, but I do find the ones that aren't over processed interesting. In the end it is art, so it's up to the person creating it.

Bingo!

If those pictures from me and they have a unique enough look to them to form a sort of "signature", I wouldn't hesitate a second to offer prints. It's not expensive producing them and they'd look even nicer in picture frames, ready to hang on the wall.

I am considering doing something to get my photos out there. I will see down the road.


I wanna thank you all for the wonderful comments and opinions. Photography is a new thing for me that I started 4 years ago. Since then I have tried all types of photography. Again, this new surreal look is something i've been recently experimenting with and again, enjoying it. Not all my photos are hdr, You can check out my gallery here. I have shared this once before. Go to the options and keep the images small for better viewing.

 

[Zur]

If you want some inspiration for a web site, check this link out :

http://www.thephotographicmoments.com/

 

[Crotale]

There is no right or wrong to photography imo. It's all on how you like your photos. And as long as you like doing what you're doing, thats all that matters

Yup, I agree. And don't get me wrong, I like all the images, just some more than others.

They did come out damn good. I'm still practicing

You seem to love doing it and that is what counts.