Lots more embiggened if you click the pics




  1. bobbo says:

    I agree: stunning. They look “manipulated” in some way, color saturation or something else?

    Renting a helicopter is nice if you are on expense account. When photograph is a hobby, I always prefer seeing photos from a model airplane, balloon, or kyte==but I’m going to copy all these and make a slide show.

    Thanks.

  2. jimbo says:

    great shots

  3. Norman Speight says:

    So.
    Here we are in ‘Europe’ Lots of little old ladies and other impoverished ones, being legislated against using incandescent light bulbs, being forced to use polluting and dangerous (mercury infested) highly expensive flourescent light bulbs whilst business continues to provide this spectacular vision.
    The poorer make the ‘contribution’ to climate change, and the tax-deductable businesses continue as before.
    Nothing new there then.

  4. Winston says:

    Wow, that guy must have the tallest tripod in the world!

  5. Winston says:

    “They look “manipulated” in some way, color saturation or something else”

    It’s a technique called High Dynamic Range photography. Multiple photos of the same subject are taken at different exposures and then merged with special software to give a dynamic range much greater than normally provided by CCD or CMOS sensors.

  6. bobbo says:

    #4–Thanks Winston. I googled HDR photography a while back as I really like the effect. Many ask why not take one photograph and just layer, manipulate with photoshop, compress, and print? There is some dispute but I think the majority view is that photoshop can come pretty close but for some reason just short of being as good as HDR.

    When you see these photos, the appeal of HDR is demonstrated. I feel the same way about stereo photography, but it is even more involved. I guess that makes stereo-HDR the Holy Grail, or maybe holographic immersive interactive HDR?

    Thanks again.

  7. Winston says:

    Example of the sort of “impossible” (without a split neutral density filter) exposure allowed by HDR photography

  8. Winston says:

    “Many ask why not take one photograph and just layer, manipulate with photoshop, compress, and print?”

    If a CCD or CMOS sensor’s pixel is saturated by overexposure or unsaturated by underexposure, the information is lost or “clipped.” No amount of photoshopping will recover it. HDR fixes that. The technique is really easy (use automatic exposure bracketing) and the softwares are in many cases free, easyHDR BASIC being as simple as it gets, I think.

  9. Winston says:

    Another good example of what HDR can do.

  10. Ah_Yea says:

    Wow, all this tech talk! Pretty good stuff.

    I was just looking for Daleks, Cybermen, or something.

  11. bobbo says:

    #7–Winston==my understanding is that what you say is true for extremely over/under exposed pictures but that anything “near” a correct exposure taken in raw format can be manipulated by software for different exposure settings. HDR simply right now does that manipulation BETTER THAN software can AND likewise HDR allows for sharp focus from near to far. The focus is no issue for the London Photos but the exposure is.

    I’m over my head here. There are some websites showing photoshop simulated HDR that I can’t tell the difference to straight HDR and then on other photos I can tell the difference and sometimes I prefer the fake.

    So, as with most things, there is a big dollop of variables.

    I need a better monitor just to begin with!!!!!!!

  12. Paddy-O says:

    Beautiful pics. Thanks UD

  13. Angel H. Wong says:

    London can be nicknamed “The Hooker.” Why? Because only at night they look pretty.

  14. James Hill says:

    #12 – Does this mean we should call you London from now on?

  15. bobbo says:

    Well, I made a slide show of the 43 pics on the website and went to EatLime to upload it but the website has changed==I don’t see how anyone downloads the files that are there.

    Well, my ProShowGold slidemaker isn’t working so I used Wondershare AVI maker and the file size is 185 MB instead of 5MB–big difference.

    This gives my time to reinstall my slideshow maker as I think some of those pics would be great starting as black and white with the colors transitioning to full bright.

    Sure is easier when you do more than one a year?

  16. Paddy-O says:

    #15 Good idea you have there. The pics are worth the effort I think.

  17. Angel H. Wong says:

    #14 James.

    I don’t think #12 (aka Paddy) would like that idea.

    Plus, remember the golden rule:

    Yer not a hooker if it’s free.

  18. Esteban says:

    HDR rocks.

  19. BubbaRay says:

    Winston has it exactly correct. It’s impossible to glean info when it’s not there, ie. clipped or underexposed. By taking a range of exposures and manipulating them with software, these amazing photos can be made. Astrophotographers have been using similar techniques for years.

  20. bobbo says:

    19–Bubba==I agree Winston is right, just as I stated—-“but” this is not about gleaning info, this is about creating an effect. An effect that departs from reality–as defined by what the human eye can actually see.

    The data that is present is not gleaned, but rather is manipulated for the final “High Dynamic” (aka Not Real) photo.

    As stated–some photoshoped fake HDR looks better than the “real” thing.
    Both are simply techniques with their applicability and pro’s and con’s.

    There is nothing holy about “real” data.

  21. Paddy-O says:

    # 17 Angel H. Wong said, “Plus, remember the golden rule: Yer not a hooker if it’s free.”

    Right, you’re a whore.

  22. BubbaRay says:

    Sorry bobbo, extracting information from photos (or any data gathering device) is what it’s all about. Do you think we’d be where we are in astronomy if we were limited by what the eye can see? What about spectroscopy? Radio telescopes? Infrared astronomy? Ultra violet astronomy? The information is there in spectra the human eye can’t see, so the photos as shown display more information than the naked eye could perceive.

    “There is nothing holy about “real” data.”

    And you’re saying it’s bogus? Real data? Give me a break. This is one argument you can’t win. Better go back to religion if you’re going to say there is nothing holy about real data. Har! And all this time I thought you gave credence to reality. You’re about to get the BubbaRayDipDork award.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5251 access attempts in the last 7 days.