Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Zandroido · 10-07-2012, 01:10 AM - **2 Likes**

Today i did something and it looks cool to me but i wonder if people like it cause it's not real, it's done with a lot of postprocessing etc.. so, do you like it or not?

Here is the link of it.

Split | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Fianl version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleric/8064117911/in/photostream

Last edited by Zandroido; 10-07-2012 at 01:05 PM.

falconeye · 10-07-2012, 01:20 AM

I like it.

I would like it more without the halos around roofs and without the star effect for highlights.

Zandroido · 10-07-2012, 01:23 AM

I have no idea how to remove that halos.

top-quark · 10-07-2012, 01:47 AM

Sorry, but it looks like an AWB failure under tungsten light to me!

Are you able to post a link to the original so that we can compare?

NoMaD_PS · 10-07-2012, 01:52 AM - **1 Like**

Very nice. Ain't nobody's business how many post-processing it takes. Only the result matters. You're good in shooting and processing, move further!

Eulogy · 10-07-2012, 02:06 AM

Personally, I'm not one for heavy PP, mostly because it turns out looking like a vomit of rainbows most of the time.

Zandroido · 10-07-2012, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by NoMaD_PS

Very nice. Ain't nobody's business how many post-processing it takes. Only the result matters. You're good in shooting and processing, move further!

Thanks a lot!

Btw this is original. Looks like it's White on the roofs, as far as i can see but maybe i'm wrong ofc

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/69090258/OOOO9356-3.jpg

aurele · 10-07-2012, 02:33 AM

i like the PP. it's nicely done.

We can see it's there, but still, the picture looks quite realistic most of the case.

Good work !

vladimiroltean · 10-07-2012, 02:53 AM

So the picture was taken almost in mid-day, and it looks like it was taken in midnight. Also, when you dropped the exposure on the sky, you had some clipped highlights which now look terribly bad as washed-out grey and absolutely no detail. Looking at the original, you could have exposed 1/2 - 1 EV lower, You might want to remove chromatic aberration, it's part of what makes the buildings look bad. The other part is the halo (bright edge, plural halos) between them and the sky. And I think there's too much unused space on the top.
Anyway, to answer your question: is it too unrealistic. Well, looking just at it, I could have sworn it's taken at night, even the white balance looked wrong enough. I guess it just matters what you want to express, not how you take and process the picture.

Zandroido · 10-07-2012, 03:42 AM

This was HDR on level 2 and it got like this, Pic was take in the early morning around 6 o'clock. I got exactly what i wanted from this picture! I removed ChromAB etc but edges are still the same. I don't know if that's edges from bad roofs or something i don't know but i cna't reove it unles i go in Photoshop to remove it pixel by pixel. No other way caue i think there is whiteness on the roof. WB was on Auto.

And I underexposed sky badly cause it was bad in my eyes, i needed something dark. it looked ok but i needed darkness to fit my eyes

jmarkku · 10-07-2012, 05:18 AM

The halos are due to small apperture and long lighting, nothing to do with post processing. Let them be.
The original is more appealing to me.

**JimJohnson** · 10-07-2012, 05:57 AM - **1 Like**

It is a nice photo.

My philosophy is post processing is like using facial makeup. How much and the type to use depends on what your intentions are. Clowns wear a lot of makeup, but clowns do not want you to take them seriously. Stage actors try to enhance certain emotions with their makeup - but it is usually not intended to be viewed from short distances. Women tend to wear less makeup when in outdoor daylight or business locations, and a bit more in more intimate locations. The same goes for photography - it all depends on your intended audience.

telly0050 · 10-07-2012, 08:43 AM

i personality prefer the pp one better.
it still looks quite realistic to me, and the warm tone adds a lot of mood to it.
only thing is the cloud part where the orange meets the grey, it's a bit rough.

Kozlok · 10-07-2012, 09:18 AM

Picaso wasn't realistic either. I like what you did. The original is a pretty picture, but very boring. The PP one is harsh, but exciting. If your aim is to make someone feel something about your work, the PP one is it.

**patrick9** · 10-07-2012, 09:33 AM

I liked the original better, The pp one wasn't bad. just difference in taste. But my opinion isn't the one that matters. If you like it that's what counts

10-07-2012, 01:10 AM - 2 Likes	#1
Zandroido Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 37	Do you like unrealistic photos? Today i did something and it looks cool to me but i wonder if people like it cause it's not real, it's done with a lot of postprocessing etc.. so, do you like it or not? Here is the link of it. Split \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Fianl version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleric/8064117911/in/photostream Last edited by Zandroido; 10-07-2012 at 01:05 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photos of K and M42 mount variations (photos of pentax k-mounts)	Just1MoreDave	Pentax Lens Articles	11	12-06-2012 12:14 PM
K100D Super taking 3GB sized photos, cant open photos.	icedomin8r	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	01-08-2012 01:07 PM
Misc Assorted Autumn Photos from an Afternoon Stroll (8 photos)	Rense	Post Your Photos!	22	11-02-2010 02:37 PM
K-5 + DA 35mm/2.4 - a very nice combo for street photos (many photos)	frank	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	72	10-28-2010 05:26 PM
Unrealistic, but I still wish they'd re-release Pentax 110	jadedrakerider	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	11-06-2008 10:26 PM

10-07-2012, 01:20 AM	#2
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	I like it. I would like it more without the halos around roofs and without the star effect for highlights.

10-07-2012, 01:23 AM	#3
Zandroido Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 37 Original Poster	I have no idea how to remove that halos.

10-07-2012, 01:47 AM	#4
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	Sorry, but it looks like an AWB failure under tungsten light to me! Are you able to post a link to the original so that we can compare?

10-07-2012, 01:52 AM - 1 Like	#5
NoMaD_PS Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 226	Very nice. Ain't nobody's business how many post-processing it takes. Only the result matters. You're good in shooting and processing, move further!

10-07-2012, 02:06 AM	#6
Eulogy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick Photos: Gallery Posts: 632	Personally, I'm not one for heavy PP, mostly because it turns out looking like a vomit of rainbows most of the time.

10-07-2012, 02:09 AM	#7
Zandroido Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 37 Original Poster	Originally posted by NoMaD_PS Very nice. Ain't nobody's business how many post-processing it takes. Only the result matters. You're good in shooting and processing, move further! Thanks a lot! Btw this is original. Looks like it's White on the roofs, as far as i can see but maybe i'm wrong ofc https://dl.dropbox.com/u/69090258/OOOO9356-3.jpg

10-07-2012, 02:33 AM	#8
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	i like the PP. it's nicely done. We can see it's there, but still, the picture looks quite realistic most of the case. Good work !

10-07-2012, 02:53 AM	#9
vladimiroltean Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Bucharest, Romania Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,465	So the picture was taken almost in mid-day, and it looks like it was taken in midnight. Also, when you dropped the exposure on the sky, you had some clipped highlights which now look terribly bad as washed-out grey and absolutely no detail. Looking at the original, you could have exposed 1/2 - 1 EV lower, You might want to remove chromatic aberration, it's part of what makes the buildings look bad. The other part is the halo (bright edge, plural halos) between them and the sky. And I think there's too much unused space on the top. Anyway, to answer your question: is it too unrealistic. Well, looking just at it, I could have sworn it's taken at night, even the white balance looked wrong enough. I guess it just matters what you want to express, not how you take and process the picture.

10-07-2012, 03:42 AM	#10
Zandroido Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 37 Original Poster	This was HDR on level 2 and it got like this, Pic was take in the early morning around 6 o'clock. I got exactly what i wanted from this picture! I removed ChromAB etc but edges are still the same. I don't know if that's edges from bad roofs or something i don't know but i cna't reove it unles i go in Photoshop to remove it pixel by pixel. No other way caue i think there is whiteness on the roof. WB was on Auto. And I underexposed sky badly cause it was bad in my eyes, i needed something dark. it looked ok but i needed darkness to fit my eyes

10-07-2012, 05:18 AM	#11
jmarkku Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Reposaari Photos: Gallery Posts: 25	The halos are due to small apperture and long lighting, nothing to do with post processing. Let them be. The original is more appealing to me.

10-07-2012, 05:57 AM - 1 Like	#12
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,774	It is a nice photo. My philosophy is post processing is like using facial makeup. How much and the type to use depends on what your intentions are. Clowns wear a lot of makeup, but clowns do not want you to take them seriously. Stage actors try to enhance certain emotions with their makeup - but it is usually not intended to be viewed from short distances. Women tend to wear less makeup when in outdoor daylight or business locations, and a bit more in more intimate locations. The same goes for photography - it all depends on your intended audience.

10-07-2012, 08:43 AM	#13
telly0050 Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 233	i personality prefer the pp one better. it still looks quite realistic to me, and the warm tone adds a lot of mood to it. only thing is the cloud part where the orange meets the grey, it's a bit rough.

10-07-2012, 09:18 AM	#14
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	Picaso wasn't realistic either. I like what you did. The original is a pretty picture, but very boring. The PP one is harsh, but exciting. If your aim is to make someone feel something about your work, the PP one is it.

10-07-2012, 09:33 AM	#15
patrick9 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Murfreesboro Tennessee Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,458	I liked the original better, The pp one wasn't bad. just difference in taste. But my opinion isn't the one that matters. If you like it that's what counts

Do you like unrealistic photos?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!