My Autopano Pro forum

Thanks beeloba I should have cropped off the very top and bottom before posting this.

I definitely want honest comments - good comments to tell me to go on, and constructive criticism to tell me to rethink where I'm going :]

DrSlony wrote:

Thanks beeloba I should have cropped off the very top and bottom before posting this.

I definitely want honest comments - good comments to tell me to go on, and constructive criticism to tell me to rethink where I'm going :]

No man… No crop, You know that there is still a very interesting debate in the level of HRD like and the too much HDR…
GURL is really good on that subject or debate.
The too much style is going against an ancestral culture who is 'looking like reality" In French we call that 'Figurative' this is probably a 'just middle' that people are accepting…
When this is impossible to discern what is the exception and is too much.
I do respect artists that goes Over the reality and make their pictures very like painting.
I do like those who experiment intermediate effect in showing the way of there research…
But my preferred picture are going to the photographers that shows a kind of intermediate looking like pictures…
Eg: This picture makes me feel almost sick http://www.hdrsoft.com/images/eiffel/tm282.jpg
Too much effect, unnatural mid-tone effects.
This is a very cultural and emotional feeling, sorry for that.

I'm not for or against HDR like pictures… but only an admirer of this important culture evolution…
I think this is very important that artists shows, regrets, or imposes a new style, like Abstract painters did in their time…
I think of Gauguin, Picasso, or daly, even if i don't like some of them…
But really I never mind, my taste is only mine

Last edited by beeloba (2008-11-12 03:52:56)

sandpan thanks

beeloba HDR is just a tool, its like when a person first uses Photoshop and uses only 1 effect and is impressed with the result, but as he progresses over the years he learns to use filters selectively and to mix and control them... same with HDR, most people abuse it, but there is nothing wrong with it in itself...
I don't remember exactly how I shot this pano, but I do approach each pano individually with a different technique based on things like the shape of the horizon and the time of day, and this pano looks like the kind that I wouldn't use HDR on, I'm quite certain that I exposed for the ground in 2 rows and for the sky in 2 rows, so no HDR and no tonemapping.

gerardm if you mean that the horizon has the most visible contrast then yes, but I couldn't have done it differently without making lighter halos above the trees. Now there are sort of 'negative' dark halos inside the trees and I preferred it this way. I remember I also used burning on some of the trees (e.g. the conifers on the left) to make them darker because they just looked bad when they were lighter but right on the bright horizon.

Last edited by DrSlony (2008-11-12 12:35:15)

The equirectangular pano looks very HDR, but the spherical version looks great! The HDR effect is not so present, and the result is very pleasant. Is it the same source?

fma38 wrote:

The equirectangular pano looks very HDR, but the spherical version looks great! The HDR effect is not so present, and the result is very pleasant. Is it the same source?

Sorry DrSlony, I didn't pay attention to the QTVR links, in fact I think that ist really well rendered…

Taf, have look at this link… Its really well made
http://www.panopixel.org/panos/00000431.mov

GURL wrote:

Expérience de pensée pour Beeloba

Copié