HDR /and/ Kodak

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by stuseven, Oct 7, 2007.

  1. stuseven

    stuseven Guest

    + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    effort
    on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    perfect...
    for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
    made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
    it was no longer economically feasible(?).

    More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
    the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
    range...
    the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
    A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
    mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
    It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
    agree
    we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
    cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
    accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
    itself -
    to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
    definitely
    is photographic art though.


    END
     
    stuseven, Oct 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. stuseven wrote:
    > + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    > I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    > their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    > without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    > effort
    > on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    > perfect...


    WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
    remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
    done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Oct 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. stuseven

    acl Guest

    On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <> wrote:
    > + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    > I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    > their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    > without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    > effort
    > on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    > perfect...
    > for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
    > made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
    > it was no longer economically feasible(?).
    >
    > More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
    > the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
    > range...
    > the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
    > A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
    > mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
    > It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
    > agree
    > we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
    > cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
    > accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
    > itself -
    > to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
    > definitely
    > is photographic art though.
    >
    > END


    I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
    DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
    when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
    of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
    converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
    few). This is the result
    http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
    I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
    (but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
    conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
    adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.

    The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
    and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
    (or more photographic, compared to photoshop).
     
    acl, Oct 7, 2007
    #3
  4. stuseven

    jerry_kean Guest

    On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl <> wrote:

    >On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <> wrote:
    >> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    >> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    >> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    >> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    >> effort
    >> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    >> perfect...
    >> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
    >> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
    >> it was no longer economically feasible(?).
    >>
    >> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
    >> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
    >> range...
    >> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
    >> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
    >> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
    >> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
    >> agree
    >> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
    >> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
    >> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
    >> itself -
    >> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
    >> definitely
    >> is photographic art though.
    >>
    >> END

    >
    >I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
    >DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
    >when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
    >of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
    >converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
    >few). This is the result
    >http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
    >I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
    >(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
    >conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
    >adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.
    >
    >The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
    >and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
    >(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).


    DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
    across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
    in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
    adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
    make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
    years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
    back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
    adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
    does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
    it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
    ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
    bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
    semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
    smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs.
     
    jerry_kean, Oct 8, 2007
    #4
  5. stuseven

    acl Guest

    On Oct 8, 2:15 pm, jerry_kean <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:39:55 -0700, acl <> wrote:
    > >On Oct 7, 7:40 pm, stuseven <> wrote:
    > >> + After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    > >> I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    > >> their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    > >> without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    > >> effort
    > >> on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    > >> perfect...
    > >> for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
    > >> made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
    > >> it was no longer economically feasible(?).

    >
    > >> More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
    > >> the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
    > >> range...
    > >> the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
    > >> A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
    > >> mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
    > >> It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
    > >> agree
    > >> we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
    > >> cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
    > >> accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
    > >> itself -
    > >> to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
    > >> definitely
    > >> is photographic art though.

    >
    > >> END

    >
    > >I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
    > >DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
    > >when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
    > >of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
    > >converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
    > >few). This is the result
    > >http://www.pbase.com/al599/genova
    > >I think it's ok for automatic adjustments. They're ok for printing too
    > >(but can be made much better by manual tweaking and using a better raw
    > >conversion). There probably are other converters that have automatic
    > >adjustments, but DxO can also do it on tiffs, jpegs etc.

    >
    > >The new generation of raw converters/editors (lightzone, capture NX
    > >and possibly others I'm missing) is also making things more automatic
    > >(or more photographic, compared to photoshop).

    >
    > DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
    > across in any category of software.


    Yes, it's big, slow and clunky. And overpriced.

    > You can get the same or better capabilities
    > in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40.


    No, in fact you don't.
     
    acl, Oct 8, 2007
    #5
  6. stuseven

    stuseven Guest

    > WHAT? It made about 40% of my photos look impossibly bad, and the
    > remaining 60% merely wrong. It looked like a totally badly
    > done unsharp mask ... halos around everything!
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    + right Doug... or, at least, in it's last dying embodiments...
    various
    things only retaining the name "Perfect Touch" gave any new users a
    bad taste for the service, and, those - such as myself, who saved
    pennies
    and nickels just to afford another set of these gems - soon learned of
    its
    demise as a viable service - thus, indeed, my reason for lamenting
    such.

    Granted, it was not geared for pro photographers... in fact,
    unless you
    used one of their one-time-use film cameras, chances of getting
    results
    were severely hampered. In that sense, it is unfair to even mention
    that
    service in this newsgroup, but I have done so, instead, respecting the
    breakthrough consumer service Kodak's Perfect Touch once represented.
     
    stuseven, Oct 8, 2007
    #6
  7. stuseven

    stuseven Guest


    > I'd say that the closest thing that I know of (for digital photos) is
    > DxO. I find it is not too subtle, but use it to mass-convert stuff
    > when I come back from a trip and so on. eg I went to Genova a couple
    > of months ago for work, and found time for a few shots which I then
    > converted using dxo (I didn't touch most of them, adjusted WB in a
    > few). This is the resulthttp://www.pbase.com/al599/genova


    + yum yum... some of the nicest out of the camera digital
    conversion
    Ive seen - thank you for sharing !
     
    stuseven, Oct 8, 2007
    #7
  8. stuseven

    stuseven Guest


    > DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
    > across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
    > in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
    > adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
    > make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
    > years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
    > back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
    > adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
    > does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
    > it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
    > ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
    > bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
    > semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
    > smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs


    + LOL... well... OP's experience is limited to freeware and/or
    drugstore processing...
    its nice to know, somewhere out there, someone is actually producing
    correct
    enchaneware for purists and the very knowledgeable.
     
    stuseven, Oct 8, 2007
    #8
  9. stuseven

    Newsnet Guest

    Greetings Stuseven,

    Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
    included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
    can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
    the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
    picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.

    I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
    to the following URL to find locations that offer it.

    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&pq-locale=en_US

    Talk to you soon,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company



    "stuseven" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >+ After looking at some of the photos in the HDR galleries,
    > I am drawn again to reflect upon what happened to Kodak and
    > their "Perfect Touch" processing. The original PerfectTouch was
    > without parallel... every picture looked right, and with very little
    > effort
    > on the part of the camera user - in other words, it really was
    > perfect...
    > for the photo processing business... it kept the consumers happy...
    > made the pros jealous... it is now gone - I must assume, because
    > it was no longer economically feasible(?).
    >
    > More to the point_ I consider Kodak's "Perfect Touch" was
    > the world's first look at what HDR is all about... dynamic print
    > range...
    > the very same which Ansel Adams became famous advocating, though
    > A.Adams, of course, was a darkroom processor... Kodak was the first
    > mass-processor to offer the "delicious look" in photos.
    > It's that "too good to be real" look in photos - and, while I
    > agree
    > we need to distinguish between what the gutsy hi-res hi-def muscle
    > cams produce, relative to HDR's whimsical faux-art; HDR has
    > accomplished much relative to the underlying goal of photography
    > itself -
    > to record an image which tells a story. It isnt purism... it
    > definitely
    > is photographic art though.
    >
    >
    > END
    >
     
    Newsnet, Oct 10, 2007
    #9
  10. stuseven

    stuseven Guest

    stuseven waves to Mr. Baird...

    I sometimes hear this echo in here... a living Kodak
    representative...
    gee, neat :)

    Well Mr. Baird, my comments are made from experience, though,
    not also expertise respecting the full range of available Kodak
    services.
    The "Perfect Touch" print service to which I so often refer was
    something
    available at several local grocery/drug store outlets... drop off one-
    time-use
    film camera / return in 3-5 days for delicious color prints. It
    simply is
    nowhere to be found in my area anymore, and Columbus (Ohio) is a major
    market city.

    The digital age is here, and I dont expect Kodak to revive this
    film
    oriented service... as I commented initially... its likely considered
    a
    financial liability in these times.

    I will give the Kodak online digital service a try, and thank you
    for
    your reply.

    *** cool deal... I just signed up at Kodak Gallery, and got a free 20
    print offer !
    end







    On Oct 10, 5:31 pm, "Newsnet" <> wrote:
    > Greetings Stuseven,
    >
    > Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and is
    > included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as you
    > can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went into
    > the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
    > picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
    >
    > I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature. Go
    > to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
    >
    > http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&...
    >
    > Talk to you soon,
    >
    > Ron Baird
    > Eastman Kodak Company
     
    stuseven, Oct 11, 2007
    #10
  11. stuseven

    stuseven Guest

    + I felt so bad about this reply, I just had to respond again...
    I did, in fact, check out the DxO software and site mentioned by
    this poster... if you read "the fine print" you begin to understand
    -why- we see comments like this about DxO and other... I know
    from experience, anything more than a 1200x800 image can start
    to slow down pentium-4 or older... the man with the DxO suggestion
    is running an Apple-Quad setup... spitting out processed prints from
    mega-pixel originals every ten seconds... I can spit out about ONE
    of these in an afternoon... thats if I just let the computer run and
    go
    shopping / library / visit friends / etcetera :) So... DxO... as
    with other
    of the extravegant items so often mentioned here, may not in fact be
    for every camera enthusiast quite yet. Good, again, to see that such
    software is out there... does produce terrific output !

    > > DxO is the slowest and biggest piece of overpriced bloatware I've ever run
    > > across in any category of software. You can get the same or better capabilities
    > > in Mediachance's "DCE AutoEnhance Pro" for $40. It reads the EXIF info and
    > > adjusts your photos according to your preferences from the EXIF tags and camera
    > > make and model. The very same way that DxO does its thing. It's been around for
    > > years before DxO. DxO only became known through their relentless spam tactics
    > > back then. The only advantage that DxO was hoped to have had was trying to
    > > adjust for lateral chromatic aberration by EXIF info, something that AutoEnhance
    > > does not do. But then DxO has always failed at that task anyway. I always hoped
    > > it would help with CA, it does not. I tested it again thoroughly about 3 months
    > > ago to see if they ever improved it. I uninstalled it. I don't leave useless
    > > bloatware of that size on my hard-drive. Since I have to do CA corrections
    > > semi-manually with PTLens anyway, DxO served no purpose. DCE AutoEnhance is
    > > smaller and faster for those rush batch jobs
     
    stuseven, Oct 11, 2007
    #11
  12. stuseven

    acl Guest

    On Oct 11, 3:35 am, stuseven <> wrote:
    > + I felt so bad about this reply, I just had to respond again...
    > I did, in fact, check out the DxO software and site mentioned by
    > this poster... if you read "the fine print" you begin to understand
    > -why- we see comments like this about DxO and other... I know
    > from experience, anything more than a 1200x800 image can start
    > to slow down pentium-4 or older... the man with the DxO suggestion
    > is running an Apple-Quad setup... spitting out processed prints from
    > mega-pixel originals every ten seconds... I can spit out about ONE
    > of these in an afternoon... thats if I just let the computer run and
    > go
    > shopping / library / visit friends / etcetera :) So... DxO... as
    > with other
    > of the extravegant items so often mentioned here, may not in fact be
    > for every camera enthusiast quite yet. Good, again, to see that such
    > software is out there... does produce terrific output !


    Hey, if you're referring to me by "the man with the DxO suggestion", I
    actually run a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 1.5GHz processor. Let me
    tell you, DxO is *glacially* slow on it! Furthermore, its output is ok
    to look at on a screen, or print at 10x15cm, but its raw conversion is
    atrocious: I can easily see the lack of detail at A4 size (ie 20x30cm
    or so) at low ISOs, and at high ISOs, forget it: it turns my photos
    into mush.

    I only use it for mass conversions for the web, as I said. Its main
    strength for me is the automatic "lighting adjustment" and colour; but
    if I'm going to put in some effort into the image, and/or print it, I
    don't use DxO. It's just for automation, which it does better than
    anything else I've seen, but its output is usually not something you
    can work with (ie it looks ok, but it's ruined as far as further
    processing is concerned).
     
    acl, Oct 11, 2007
    #12
  13. stuseven

    stuseven Guest

    + Sorry "DxO guy"... I messed that up seriously... it was, in fact
    another
    photographer who uses DxO (Ken Rockwell) to whom I was referring....
    ...you have the nice pictures from Genoa(?) or similar... but it was
    Mr. Rockwell
    (I think Ive got it right finally) who had commented on spitting out
    an image
    every ten seconds on his Mac quad setup... obviously, something not
    possible on a laptop, or most laptops Ive seen.




    > Hey, if you're referring to me by "the man with the DxO suggestion", I
    > actually run a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 1.5GHz processor. Let me
    > tell you, DxO is *glacially* slow on it! Furthermore, its output is ok
    > to look at on a screen, or print at 10x15cm, but its raw conversion is
    > atrocious: I can easily see the lack of detail at A4 size (ie 20x30cm
    > or so) at low ISOs, and at high ISOs, forget it: it turns my photos
    > into mush.
    >
    > I only use it for mass conversions for the web, as I said. Its main
    > strength for me is the automatic "lighting adjustment" and colour; but
    > if I'm going to put in some effort into the image, and/or print it, I
    > don't use DxO. It's just for automation, which it does better than
    > anything else I've seen, but its output is usually not something you
    > can work with (ie it looks ok, but it's ruined as far as further
    > processing is concerned).
     
    stuseven, Oct 11, 2007
    #13
  14. stuseven

    acl Guest

    On Oct 11, 10:58 pm, stuseven <> wrote:
    > + Sorry "DxO guy"... I messed that up seriously... it was, in fact
    > another
    > photographer who uses DxO (Ken Rockwell) to whom I was referring....
    > ...you have the nice pictures from Genoa(?) or similar... but it was
    > Mr. Rockwell
    > (I think Ive got it right finally) who had commented on spitting out
    > an image
    > every ten seconds on his Mac quad setup... obviously, something not
    > possible on a laptop, or most laptops Ive seen.


    Argh! You confused me with Ken Rockwell?! :)

    Thanks for your kind words on the Genoa shots, by the way. Although if
    you go there you'll find that all you have to do is point the camera
    (which is all I did, I didn't have time for serious photography).
     
    acl, Oct 11, 2007
    #14
  15. stuseven

    Newsnet Guest

    Hi Stuseven,

    Actually, the processing service is still available. Whether or not it can
    be easily found at local retailers is something else. For a review of the
    feature, however, try the site I offered for film using the URL I included
    below. This relates to both digital and film.

    Actually, it is a nice service and when we initially offered it as well as
    today, we were able to scan the negative and adjust the color and quality of
    the exposure to help improve the results. Later, when digital came along, we
    included it when printing from a digital file. If there is one thing that
    Kodak can do well it is color imaging.

    Talk to you soon, Stuseven,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company


    "stuseven" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > stuseven waves to Mr. Baird...
    >
    > I sometimes hear this echo in here... a living Kodak
    > representative...
    > gee, neat :)
    >
    > Well Mr. Baird, my comments are made from experience, though,
    > not also expertise respecting the full range of available Kodak
    > services.
    > The "Perfect Touch" print service to which I so often refer was
    > something
    > available at several local grocery/drug store outlets... drop off one-
    > time-use
    > film camera / return in 3-5 days for delicious color prints. It
    > simply is
    > nowhere to be found in my area anymore, and Columbus (Ohio) is a major
    > market city.
    >
    > The digital age is here, and I dont expect Kodak to revive this
    > film
    > oriented service... as I commented initially... its likely considered
    > a
    > financial liability in these times.
    >
    > I will give the Kodak online digital service a try, and thank you
    > for
    > your reply.
    >
    > *** cool deal... I just signed up at Kodak Gallery, and got a free 20
    > print offer !
    > end
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Oct 10, 5:31 pm, "Newsnet" <> wrote:
    >> Greetings Stuseven,
    >>
    >> Actually, the technology that went into 'Perfect Touch' is not gone and
    >> is
    >> included in the printing quality you will find at the Kodak Gallery as
    >> you
    >> can get processing done there. Also, some of the technology that went
    >> into
    >> the feature is included in Kodak Digital Camera Menus. You can take a
    >> picture then review and apply the Perfect Touch option in the camera.
    >>
    >> I agree with you that it was (is) a great option and well done feature.
    >> Go
    >> to the following URL to find locations that offer it.
    >>
    >> http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010/1306&...
    >>
    >> Talk to you soon,
    >>
    >> Ron Baird
    >> Eastman Kodak Company

    >
     
    Newsnet, Oct 16, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. none

    Creo's MOS and HDR file formats

    none, Jan 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    578
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jan 17, 2004
  2. Bracketing feature and HDR

    , May 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,419
  3. Trellis Management

    CLARITY-HDR and Microsoft's HD Photo Comparison

    Trellis Management, Aug 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Trellis Management
    Aug 6, 2007
  4. RichA

    Is HDR and abomination as it exists today?

    RichA, Oct 23, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    575
    Miles Bader
    Oct 25, 2009
  5. Liam O'Connor
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    192
    Liam O'Connor
    May 13, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page