[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
now I'll toss some of my images into the ring.
[/ QUOTE ]
I love the second from the top. Very nice.
[/ QUOTE ]The colors in that first one is incredible. I love this thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll agree here. All good shots. The first one is great.
You know what might be cool here, though? HDR. Here's a tutorial:
http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/200...dr-images.html
What HDR does is combine several exposures such that everything is properly lit. Obviously, in that photo, it is exposed for the light from the stained glass, leaving the church dark. If you exposed for the church, the stained glass would be blown out. Combined using an HDR technique, everything would be properly exposed.
I've never actually tried it before, and some people think it looks fake (well, it is fake). And it might not even work on this image because the contrast between the dark church and the stained glass is an important part of the photo.
But I'll be experimenting with that technique once I get the newer version of Photoshop.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it all depends on what you're going for. I see plenty of examples of just a higher dynamic range represented in a photo. Doesn't look fake at all. On the other hand, some people are going for a different look and it oftens look very fake, but I think it becomes more of an artistic choice rather than a functional one.