: RFNX Ste | : stegough | www.stegough.com
Another from Tuscany
We were in a little village called Iano, we could see the church in Volterra at the other side of the valley! Had an awesome time, the weather was beautiful, and the views from where we were, are breathtaking
Not wishing to Hijack the 'photo a day thread' but did you make it into Volterra? We were about 6 miles from the town centre surrounded we found an amazing little trattoria 'da bado' tucked away round the back of the village just round the corner from a local supermarket. Also it was our first visit to Tuscany and we were amazed by the selection of local produce - fresh porcini mushrooms ,wild rabbit, courgette flowers etc etc and in the supermarkets!!!
All in all we loved it so much we will certainly be going back
Yeah we went for a day trip to volterra, and various other hill top towns and villages during our 2 weeks in Tuscany, San Gimignano was my favourite, awesome icecream there, and we saw James Nesbit in the world champion gellateria! Really liked Siena too. Spent the third week between Florence and Rome, soaking up the culture, haven't been through those photos properly yet though.
wing walkers
| Photographer |
(not my photo, obviously)
Obviously a bit of rust here and there changes the tone in different places, but that's way off. I only knew because I used to drive a later model all the time though.
Generally the HDR (or other PP) has dragged out most of the saturation and underexposed most of the photo. Aside from it looking silly (from a photographic perspective - as art I guess it's in the eye of the beholder), it just seems plain wrong.
Seriously? you're complaining about the colour of a tractor?
WTF? It's a photo.... not some doodle... isn't the primary point of photography to capture what you see before you?
don't know why i can take long exposures with my camera.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
No, what I meant was you generally don't just go and almost completely change the colour of things. I did say it was a photographic thing and not an art thing (art is doing what you want essentially, and perhaps that's what he was after, but it appeared otherwise in his reply to me), but technically as a photo it (it being the PP - the original might be fine) was rubbish.
Photography is of course more than just pressing the shutter release, but he did ask what was wrong with the colour... so I showed him. It was underexposed and completely messed up.
Maybe my main gripe was the HDR (it normally is), but generally the point of HDR is to enhance the range of exposure across the image, not completely obliterate detail and colour.
Before we get into this argument, I'd just like to point out there is a little op-ed piece in the current Amateur Photographer about this very subject. Should photos be art or documentation?
I saw both personally. I take lots of photos to document what is going on. For example. there are a couple of constructions projects in Aberdeen at the moment, and I've been down on multiple occasions and stood in the same place to take progress shots of them. They aren't the most exciting photos, but they will be very interesting in 20 years when we've all forgotten what that area used to be like.
Other photos, like the HDRs posted above are quite clearly art. I love the fact that they look like awesome pencil drawings. I think they convey the kind of childish feeling I certainly get around heavy machinery.
I don't see the same distinction between photography and art that you do - photography *is* art in my view - the camera nearly always lies. Forensic photography is another matter, but I don't notice this thread being called 'forensic photo-a-day'
How generally? I think I've seen more HDR used more as effect than to capture a larger exposure range. I use it for that purpose, but I don't have any qualms with people using tools for different means - heck, you should see the abuse I put the USM operation too.Maybe my main gripe was the HDR (it normally is), but generally the point of HDR is to enhance the range of exposure across the image, not completely obliterate detail and colour.
Colour is completely subjective anyway - even leaving aside the 'do you see this like I see this?' philosophical debate, camera's can't capture anything like the colours we see, and monitors can't display them either. Altering the colour of something really is one of photography's lesser lies
Oh, I don't like HDR - don't get me wrong - but I won't complain about it. I'll only have a say in threads where that is the topic. The use of HDR isn't something I frown upon - I'll usually just ignore it and quickly move on.
That wasn't my complaint in my reply - perhaps it was driven a bit from the use of HDR, but my main problem was what it turned the subject into. Of course rules such as exposure are often meant to be broken for the best effect, but mmh replied to my light-hearted dig at the colour with what seemed like a serious question, so I answered it.
There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 9 guests)