Subject: Re: HDR rainforest
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id z79mr7378612itb.15.1511057131587;
Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:05:31 -0800 (PST)
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete">
Subject: Re: HDR rainforest
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 21:05:01 -0500
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <ouqm7t$6lb$>
X-Received-Bytes: 1784
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3012602525
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/18/2017 8:18 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> "Alfred Molon"<> wrote
> | Photomatix Pro with five RAW images (0EV, +- 2EV, +-4EV);
> | "photographic" setting.
> |
> | The water of the waterfall and the sky on top are very bright, while the
> | shadow areas in the trees are very dark.
>    Somehow I don't get the feeling of the depth and
> atmosphere of the space. I think because it's slightly
> blurred and too saturated. But I sure would like to
> be there to spend a sunny afternoon sunning and
> swimming. :)

IMHO it is indeed a badly processed image. I suspect that the burning of 
the highlights, and lack of shadow detail,  are the result of either 
shooting in low quality JPEG, and/or bad processing. The over saturation 
and over-saturation and high luminescence  of the green, are clues to 
poor processing.

Having said that, I agree it might be a good place to chill out for a while.