Digital Photographer of the Year Winners • Non-Gaming • Photography • Eurogamer.net

Deleted user 15 January 2010 09:42:36

Link.

Suprised how processed some of these shots are tbh. Unless I'm wrong there's loads of HDR on some of those.

TheSaint 15 Jan 2010 09:45:29 20,950 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 16 years ago

Photo 26 is probably NSFW.

morriss 15 Jan 2010 09:48:03 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years ago

They're all pretty fucking amazing.

Spanky 15 Jan 2010 09:48:46 15,037 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

And ten, it's got fat.

ram 15 Jan 2010 09:53:51 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Lots of HDR? Maybe 2 out of 30.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 09:56:16

ram wrote:
Lots of HDR? Maybe 2 out of 30.

Still, any is suprising. Normally competitions like this only allow basic editing.

JohnnyWashnGo 15 Jan 2010 09:59:15 1,544 posts
Seen 5 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Crikey - they are all pretty decent. Not all to my taste personally, but technically the shots all look fantastic.

otto Moderator 15 Jan 2010 10:02:35 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

Nice link, thanks. Some of those are so good I just want to give up.

Others don't really impress me much at all, including the overall winner for some reason.

Spanky 15 Jan 2010 10:05:01 15,037 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

I don't understand the inclusion of this one? Am i missing something.

otto Moderator 15 Jan 2010 10:09:36 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

Aha, reason kalel posted this is there's one of him in there.

Spanky 15 Jan 2010 10:11:51 15,037 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

Nah he's wearing red, that'd make him melt.

otto Moderator 15 Jan 2010 10:12:41 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

4, 5, 8, 11 and 24 are my favourites, they're outstandingly amazing.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 10:14:42

otto wrote:
Aha, reason kalel posted this is there's one of him in there.

I know that can't be HDR, but there's got to be something done to that shot no? It just doesn't look right to me.

mrpon 15 Jan 2010 10:15:47 37,367 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 15 years ago

Irrepressible dark horse has let himself go.

Photo 22.

Blaketown 15 Jan 2010 10:16:54 5,658 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 14 years ago

What's HDR?

/Noob o/

Edit: Just wiki'd it. Sounds like cheating to me.

otto Moderator 15 Jan 2010 10:18:37 49,322 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 20 years ago

kalel wrote:

otto wrote:
Aha, reason kalel posted this is there's one of him in there.

I know that can't be HDR, but there's got to be something done to that shot no? It just doesn't look right to me.

Perhaps the light catching the mist rising off the grass? Gives it a slightly unearthly quality which I love. There's a lot of contrast in there but it looks right to me!

Definitely no HDR, there's no need for it, the dynamic range in the photo is not high enough.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 10:22:59

Can you even HDR an action shot like that? How would you get a range of different exposures?

billythekid 15 Jan 2010 10:25:10 12,595 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years ago

Can't you do it with auto bracketing on the camera?

ram 15 Jan 2010 10:25:35 3,598 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

just copy the image and change the exposure levels on the copies, for example the original and 2 copies at -1 and +1 stops.

henro_ben 15 Jan 2010 10:26:19 2,393 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

kalel wrote:
Can you even HDR an action shot like that? How would you get a range of different exposures?

Many hdr shots aren't actually hdr - they're tone mapped from a single exposure. So that's how you could get one from an action shot.

Although the one in question hasn't been tone mapped (I don't think). Has certainly been edited to some extent though, looks like the blacks have been crushed & some saturation/desaturation of chanels to make the red pop.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 10:27:04

ram wrote:
just copy the image and change the exposure levels on the copies, for example the original and 2 copies at -1 and +1 stops.

Right.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 10:33:16

Blaketown wrote:
Just wiki'd it. Sounds like cheating to me.

Not always. Digital sensors can't capture the range of brightness we see with our eyes. Combining two shots to get that range in the photo seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Especially given a few years that'll be the range the sensors actually have.

DaM 15 Jan 2010 10:36:36 17,729 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

TheSaint wrote:
Photo 26 is probably NSFW.

OK for me.

/works in pest control

henro_ben 15 Jan 2010 10:38:40 2,393 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 15 years ago

Maturin wrote:

Not always. Digital sensors can't capture the range of brightness we see with our eyes. Combining two shots to get that range in the photo seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Especially given a few years that'll be the range the sensors actually have.

The trouble is that 99% of people seem to have no sense of restraint when it comes to hdr...

DaM 15 Jan 2010 10:40:20 17,729 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 20 years ago

Spanky wrote:
I don't understand the inclusion of this one? Am i missing something.

But it's the queue for Heaven! You can see it quite clearly, where the clouds are breaking.

Deleted user 15 January 2010 10:41:17

I�m not a fan of it being used for �artistic effect�.

Nissenakke 15 Jan 2010 11:52:58 42 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years ago

henro_ben wrote:

kalel wrote:
Can you even HDR an action shot like that? How would you get a range of different exposures?

Many hdr shots aren't actually hdr - they're tone mapped from a single exposure. So that's how you could get one from an action shot.

Although the one in question hasn't been tone mapped (I don't think). Has certainly been edited to some extent though, looks like the blacks have been crushed & some saturation/desaturation of chanels to make the red pop.

Yeah, looks like the photographer has been playing around with saturation, and also some unsharp mask to make the players "pop" from the background and get that almost "comic book drawing" look. A bit hard to explain what I mean (my English is a bit rubbish too), but I can try to illustrate:

These are a couple of live shots of Machine Head I shot last summer:

Original - sharpened a little bit, and adjusted levels.

Harder adjustment of levels, saturation and an unsharp mask to make everything more defined and kinda look like it's drawn with a thick pencil.

Another shot I did the same on.

Tonka 15 Jan 2010 11:55:03 31,980 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

kalel wrote:

ram wrote:
Lots of HDR? Maybe 2 out of 30.

Still, any is suprising. Normally competitions like this only allow basic editing.

What's the point of having a special digital award if you aren't allowed to make the most of the format?

Deleted user 15 January 2010 11:56:46

This is so great

Deleted user 15 January 2010 11:57:51

Tonka wrote:

kalel wrote:

ram wrote:
Lots of HDR? Maybe 2 out of 30.

Still, any is suprising. Normally competitions like this only allow basic editing.

What's the point of having a special digital award if you aren't allowed to make the most of the format?

Because you have to draw the line somewhere.