Debunking myths on genetics and DNA

Friday, December 2, 2011


In a previous HDR post I hinted at the added feature of tonemapping, so I thought I'd post an example of a photo for which tonemapping quite improved the image. I took this photo last June in Massachusetts:

This is right across the street from where I lived as a graduate student, so no wonder I like the photo. But as you can see, the sky is really dull. It's flat. So I tonemapped and this is what I got:

Maybe you find the second image artificial. But I think it really brings out the texture of the sky, which, mind you, was there, and my eyes could see it because they would refocus when I'd look at the sky, but lenses can't do that. I find tonemapping to make a huge difference also when shooting in shady settings:

Bottom line: I'm not dogmatic when it comes to these things. Of course, most of the work is always done behind the viewfinder. But there's an art in editing images too, and that's what I'm trying to learn as well.


  1. I like both of those. I wonder if people complain about the "artificiality" because they have been conditioned to think of the originals as natural. Both of the above pictures look "real" to me.
    The sky in the first is a good addition but I also really like how the grass isn't just a big green mass anymore--you can see the yellow of the seeds and things now.

  2. Thank you! I completely agree. :)


Comments are moderated. Comments with spam links will be deleted and never published. So, if your intention is to leave a comment just to post a bogus link, please spare your time and mine. To all others: thank you for leaving a comment, I will respond as soon as possible.