That's what I mean by blending them. They were on separate layers.
irinaescoffery wrote:
I would like to see how you created such amazing photos too. Thank you for sharing. It's fantastic!
Thanks! Here's what the RAWs looked like:
http://ddphotos.com/quiraing_raws.jpgBlend the two together, add some curves and levels, and you have a shot closer to reality than anything you could get in a single click.
mike82947 wrote:
I wasn't trying to say that isn't so. but uploading a file that is at a higher pixel density than the resolution capability of the screen is often a waste of file size.
Files don't have pixel densities, they just have pixels. The density that those pixels appear on your monitor is controlled by your monitor, not the file.
That's exactly what it was, Jim. I'll see if i can get the originals together.
Wahawk wrote:
Not really, just an aid to help make up for what he couldn't do 'in camera'
Not saying PP is "ALL" bad, just that so many go so overboard!
I'm not sure why people think their cameras output some sort of absolute truth that becomes less true when manipulated. Your camera just does what you tell it, same as Photoshop.
If I overexpose by 4 stops and blow out everything but the darkest shadows, was that reality? Was that what I saw? If I post-process it to recover the highlights, which version of the image is closer to what I saw? Closer to "reality"? The PP-ed one.
I certainly don't mean to imply that post-processing just 'makes up for mistakes' either. Your camera isn't some magical device capable of everything you can dream of. Some situations, such as extreme dynamic ranges, simply can't be captured by your camera. Take this image, for example:
http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/1652304/When I was standing there, could I see the clouds? Yep. Could I see the ground right in front of me? Yep. Could the camera capture all of this in one snap? No way. Either the ground was completely black, or the sky was completely blown out. I had to shoot multiple frames and merge them in post to capture exactly what I saw.
So post-processing can not only enhance your photos, but can bring them closer to reality than your camera ever could.
photoninja1 wrote:
There's no way to print a 72ppi pic in a large size satisfactorily.
This isn't quite correct. The PPI setting is completely meaningless when it comes to the files out of your digital camera. It's just a default value that the camera sticks in there because something must be in there. You can change it to whatever you want without affecting the quality of your image.
For more info, read here:
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.htm