How do I take photos like this? Can I use my entry-level D3300

I want to remove my eyes with rusty spoons after seeing that picture.

In theory, but you shouldn't

fucking shadows, how do they work?

>shaggy2dope.png

File: needs_more_saturation.jpg (500KB, 1000x625px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1000x625px

Sharpening
>100
Vibrance
>100
HDR
>100
Shadows
>100
Highlights
>-100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:06 23:42:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	625

>>2878023
this is hdr edit gore, I hope you fill your online presence up with photos like these so nobody takes you seriously

>>2878030
I thought it was HDR but I thought there might have been something more to it

I don't come to this board very often, and based on these you all seem to be against HDR

What are /p/'s opinions on HDR, and if they're against it?

>>2878035
if used properly, it can make a good picture out of a difficult scene

if abused, like in this instance, it can permanently damage the soul and eyes

>>2878035
If HDR is done properly, you won't know it's HDR. If HDR is done poorly, as in the OP, you will know it, as you will wish that someone was taking a shit directly into your pupils rather than looking at that abomination of an image.

>>2878023
WAOW
MUCH LOCAL CONTRAST
SO CLARITY
VERY STYLE

>>2878047
is automatic HDR ever a good option though? I've never used it, I've always done that stuff through masking

>>2878066
I need help myself. I have a obsessive urge to add lots of clarity to my photos. How do I stop myself?

>>2878095
you could always go full retard and process all your photos like OP for a year or so

>>2878069
Yeah, on an iPhone.

Modern cameras have at least 12 stops of dynamic range. What kind of landscapes are you guys shooting that require more than 12 fucking stops? There's no way you'll ever get a shot like that to look natural.

The only real benefits of exposure blending is that you can be lazier with your exposure settings and buy less ND filters.

>>2878095
kys?

>>2878112
>ND filters
man photoshop is much better than ND filters. those horizontal lines cutting trees in half, that never looked "natural". ND filters a shit.

>>2878119
I mean solid, non-gradual ND filters.

Say you want to blur something in the shadows using a slow shutter speed, but your highlights would clip. You could get away without using a solid ND filter, just by overexposing everything anyway and dialing it down in Lightroom. As long as your shadows (which are now highlights) and anything near them don't clip, you can blend them easily with a proper exposure. We'd never run into this scenario, though, because most of the stuff people like to blur is highlights (water, clouds).

My point stands: I urge you to find a photo with more than 12 stops of dynamic range, that any detail near the ends of the range wouldn't look unnatural.

>>2878133
sorry I misread that
>a photo with more than 12 stops of dynamic range
any landscape photo with the sun in it
any photo that includes shadow and the sky during the daytime
in general, any scene in which a person observing it would need to wait for their eyes to adjust if they looked at the highlights
it would be enormously helpful to be able to capture highlight detail at the same time as shadow and automatically compress them into a smaller dynamic range. this would more realistically capture the way people "see" daytime just as stopping down to get everything in focus realistically captures the way people "see" a landscape by letting them look wherever they want to in the picture. it is often necessary in photography or filmmaking to cut highlights, wouldn't it be better if you could accomplish this digitally? (without huge amounts of noise?)

>>2878187
>sun
Sure, if you want to capture detail around the sun (not on the sun itself, that would be impossible and we can't see detail on the sun naturally anyway), you just spot meter it and put it in the right edge of the RAW histogram (not the one your camera shows, which takes into account JPEG settings, white balance and color space gamma, the one something like rawdigger shows.).

You'll very likely be able to recover all the shadow detail from a single exposure. Maybe, but just maybe, you'll get some noisy blacks which won't be fixable with NR if you're printing huge. Then one exposure blending is okay.

I'm looking forward to modulo camera sensor (which kinda retains infinite highlight detail) just like anyone else, but it's not like we don't have enough dynamic range already.

Sorry I'm exaggerating, I'm just sick of seeing stupid video tutorials teaching how to blend 9 exposures using luminosity masks just to add contrast back in the end so it actually looks natural, achieving virtually nothing that couldn't be done with a single exposure and highlight/shadow recovery.

>>2878237
>I'm just sick of seeing stupid video tutorials teaching how to blend 9 exposures using luminosity mask
lol fair enough
fyi you can actually expose the sun correctly with most SLRs, I probably wouldn't blend that into a landscape shot though

>>2878023
You're a Big Ben

>>2878273
For you

>>2878237
The simple solution would be to just get a D810 or similar and revel in 14.8 stops of dynamic range. I haven't come across a single scene where I actually needed to blend exposures in a damn long while, every photo is a perfectly blended HDR.
I tried shooting a sunset with five exposures just to see how far I could take it, but the lens ran out of contrast...

>>2878273
are you the c/o/conut?

>>2878330
Exactly.

For film shooters, there's also the ECN-2 color negative process which yields 16 stops of dynamic range.

>>2878272
That would... actually be kinda cool. Take a normal landscape photo and another exposure with a 14-stop ND filter, blend the sun spots in for the ultimate HDR.

>>2878023
It's amazing how flat you can make a picture with HDR, it really looks like a painting by someone with color idiocy and no sense of depth

File: MY-EYES!-THE-GOGGLES-DO-NOTHING!.jpg (104KB, 587x469px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 587x469px

>>2878023

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	587
Image Height	355
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:08 00:55:31
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	587
Image Height	469

>>2878023
You can do it with imagemagick.


convert -gaussian 50 image.jpg - | composite -compose overlay image.jpg - image-hdr.jpg

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=718699

>>2878357
>>2878330
>>2878112
>shoot portra
>meter for shadows
>18 stops of DR
>???
>profit

>>2878028
>MUH EYES
>IT BURNS

Is is not HDR.
Just plain BREXIT

File: image.jpg (90KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 600x600px

>>2878023
It reminds me of pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	600
Scene Capture Type	Standard