As clearly says on the website: "Bombo at sunrise" in NSW http://www.jeromebphoto.com/australian-coast/ussfpy86azk8plilpbe8hop2fzlc1i Not an original photo as the colours have being heavily saturated to the point to make it look so unnatural for that time of the day... I prefer much more the original but I'm not an expert. I just like photos at "au naturel":
I could be wrong but I reckon that pic has been enhanced also. The sky looks like it has been softened and the foreground has probably had the exposure bought up a little also. The first photo has been taken with a longer exposure and possibly not had much more work done on it than the second. Like I said could be wrong, but there are so many different adjustments that can be mad these days it is astounding. Both very nice pics though. Were is the @Happy Snapper , after all he does it for a living, I think.
bombo was a quarry supplying blue metal then closed down was a fun place to go bike riding then a locked gate at the entry and now they built this crap plant in it {} you can still access down there thru the day but the gate gets locked and they will charge ya to come and let you out
I always enjoy the pictures taken by this bloke... They are soooo good... http://danproud.com.au/ What I like about Dan is that he goes out of his way to retain as much as possible of the original format and his choice of subjects are also quite enjoyable... EDIT... I didn't even know, but it looks like now he makes videos as well...
Just a WAG but the first one has probably been done with HDR (high dynamic range) photography. Takes a number of images all identical but with differing exposure levels, some under exposed and some over exposed and then combines the lot into one image. Varies between camers and apps but anywher from 3 to 9 or more exposures. Gives those saturated colours, both clear image in the dark places and bright where it is bright and almost always blurs anything not static in the image eg; the surf. Cheers Tom R
I'm here... yes has been very much enhanced. Lots of contrast, density corrections, saturation and clarity (or definition) applied. Back when i were a lad, you had to buy high contrast film if you were shooting on a cloudy day or a low contrast subject. Today.. the sky is the limit. It is a great shot!
If you prefer the original.. that is fine. All of this from exposure to saturation etc etc is not a standard measured "thing"... it comes down to taste. Beauty is in the eye of the cheque book holder as we say. I have a 40 inch print in my lounge that I shot early morning in Amsterdam.. people going to work. B&W and very high contrast. Some people who see it are wowed.. and others wonder how a professional photographer managed to fuck it up so badly!
For most of us mortals it's as easy as pushing the hdr button and waiting for the camera to go click click click ( or another click click in hdr 2) , then watch this horrible washed out image appear with deails in the shadows but no real depth to the combined image.
Just select HDR on your iPhone Doc. I have HDR software in the studio.... makes for a lot of really good images... and fucks up even more.
Bit of a difference between real hdr and pretend hdr. Is a long process for the real stuff. Even though there are many enhancements available it still takes time and patience to apply them in a pleasing way. Decided to do some star trails one night. Turned out great for a first time. Don't think I'll bother again though, oh the work and time. {}
