Just wondering if this picture looks like it had special effects added. I don't know why but some people just don't like pictures that are taken and look like what you see with the naked eye. Take this one. It looks like what you see with your eyes. Did picture1 get edited with special effects? This picture is taken by the moderator from a photography forum and people are sensitive over there i don't dare to ask.
It looks like an HDR image to me. Technically not an effect I suppose. Basically its produced by merging several identical photos together - each one taken with slightly different settings on the camera to produce an extra detailed picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_imaging
Picture 1 could also shot with a single image, a (nighttime) shot with longer exposure than normal. Then cleaned up a bit with an editing program. As for some people not liking Naked-eye/WYSIWYG photography, well some people just like it more that's all. However people in general IMO, as long as the image is clean, with good color and focus. Most people will like it if it's balanced all around. Picture 2 isn't that great, overly exposed whites/highlights, etc. Which really isn't something you would see with the naked eye.
Problem is now it lacks contrast, has a grey hue over the whole image, and there is no detail left in the blown-out areas because they were blown out in the first place. I highly doubt that picture looks exactly like what a person would see in real life. Why? Because humans can perceive a much greater dynamic range than cameras. So a human would not be seeing completely white highlights in that scene, and the shadows would still reveal more detail. The first photo, in fact, is probably more representative of what the eye actually sees.
The second picture is just more dull than the picture 1. The settings it was taken with don't help as it lacks details. You can take a picture of the same thing, with the same camera, but with different photographers and get very different results. There's more details, color, and a more interesting angle in the first picture. I'm sure if you bring that photographer down from the roof to take a picture of picture2, they would take a much better picture because they have that eye and knows how to use their camera.
The first one does look like true HDR. There's also a post-process on single images that people call HDR, but they aren't the same, the difference is obvious.
Picture 1 is by far the most unrealistic. The background images are too detailed or not detailed enough. Somehow the overall tone makes the building in the foreground look like an architect's rendering from a 3D modeling program. Main criticism, appears to have been scrubbed too clean; like restoration work on an old movie where all the film grain has been removed.
Or maybe you want some fake HDR? lol Original What you did What I did .. probably the opposite of what you want.
These pictures are damn good,Wondering how it would have been visioned when processed in stereoscopic 3d.
No special affects in the 1st pic. This is just a long exposure and it does not look like HDR. You can get that kind of dynamic range with a single shot, low ISO and good post processing skills. The 2nd shot... well, I understand the debate on the contrast and saturation. However, it's just not interesting. It is not what your eyes see because there is no depth to the shot, IMO. Flat! Part of capturing a good image is making a 2d photo represent a 3d perspective.
