Old Chili Truck

vipgraphx · Jul 8, 2012

I took this photo a while back and decided to re-process it. I did some color grading to this image and I really like the way it turned out. What say you?

Chile truck by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

JoshuaSimPhotography · Jul 8, 2012

I quite like but I don't think you need so much of that editing, do you have the original pic?

vipgraphx · Jul 8, 2012

yes here is the original post

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/276002-chili-pumpkin-stand.html

JoshuaSimPhotography · Jul 8, 2012

I like the original better. But it depends on the story you're trying to tell. This one is better for a more dramatic story

ann · Jul 8, 2012

I like the other better as well. With this one, the "orange " color bleeds everywhere.

Am always amazed how certain colors tend to change with such intensity with HDR, my thought is the combination of all those exposures, then the tonemapping. Tans seem to fall into that category.

EDL · Jul 8, 2012

:thumbup: for the original one too

Bynx · Jul 8, 2012

If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.

pixmedic · Jul 8, 2012

Bynx said:
If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.

I think, technically speaking, pretty much everything posted has been digitally altered in some way. Maybe what we need is a tone mapping sub section with the HDR area. If this image was tone mapped of course.

Bynx · Jul 8, 2012

Ok, then should every digitally altered image be called HDR? I definately think not. There are certain parameters and when you cross them then its not an HDR but something else. Not that that is a bad thing. But I just dont like lumping everything good bad and ugly in the pot and calling it HDR.

ann · Jul 8, 2012

personally, when i alter an image past a certain point i call it digital art, not a photograph. When they are hung and sold it is always with the description of being digital art.

that point may vary from person to person , but there is a point when it should be obvious to the educated photographer.

AaronLLockhart · Jul 8, 2012

ann said:
personally, when i alter an image past a certain point i call it digital art, not a photograph. When they are hung and sold it is always with the description of being digital art.

that point may vary from person to person , but there is a point when it should be obvious to the educated photographer.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!

I JUST had this SAME conversation with someone on here about this EXACT same thing. I'm glad to hear that other people think they exact same thing I do. I think editing is alright to an extent. There is a LINE where it's basically a digital painting, and calling it photography is really a disgrace to the trade.

vipgraphx · Jul 8, 2012

Bynx said:
If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.

Bynx I already have posted this the way it should look. I have been working on color grading a method which is used in video or motion work and applying it some of my past photos I have since I really have not had the time to get out and shoot.

Its a fun way to alter an image and make it become something else worth looking at. You may disagree but to say it gives HDR a bad name umm, I highly disagree with that statement. Most folks work on this forum is altered beyond a realistic looking photo including yours and if you are going for something the way it should look then a regular photo will do that just fine. If HDR is truly used for its original intentions than most here have missed that point.

You can call this digitally altered which does not bother me one bit and I agree it is very digitally altered. Rather than staying in the safe box I like to explore outside it and try to bring in other areas
of interest I have into my processing. Color grading just happens to be something I wanted to try out and honestly I really like despite the majority post that don't. I was working on a project I was presented
with and I had to take some footage and color correct it and color grade it for a short video. I thought wow it would be cool to apply this to photography.

It may not be for everyones enjoyment and I completely understand that with no hard feelings. I enjoy taking photos and pushing them as much as I can to the point where its no longer a photo but
an expression. I look at this photo and think hhmm I wonder what world you would have to live in for this to be what reality looks like. Its almost like a dream.

Cheers

Bynx · Jul 8, 2012

Hey Vip, cudos for what you are doing. I do the same thing all the time. I just dont post it in the HDR forum. If there isnt another forum for files that have been monkeyed with then there should be. As I said all things that have been altered shouldnt be lumped together with HDR imaging. I guess its like a purist photographer who doesnt like the use of Photoshop at all. Id like to see HDR images as they were intended.....really nice looking, better than, the single shot taken by the purist. We have to put up with the newbies that dont know any better and we try to show them the way to achieve those results. But where do we draw the line at what we accept in the HDR FORUM? The overcooked look is bad enough and hopefully just a fad. There is a painterly look which I really like. But none of it has anything to do with HDR except that to get to the stage where we can actually see an HDR image we have to tone map it. And there is the problem. Too many Stevie Wonders out there tone mapping images that look dog awful. I had to step in here since you are one of the more numerous posters in the forum and I wouldnt like to see more of this kind of stuff which has nothing to do with HDR imaging. Now this is just my opinion. Im sure there are some who will disagree. By the way, in that other forum for files that have been monkeyed with, Id say I like your chilli truck and it would probably make a pretty good OOB.

Steve5D · Jul 8, 2012

Bynx said:
Hey Vip, cudos for what you are doing. I do the same thing all the time. I just dont post it in the HDR forum. If there isnt another forum for files that have been monkeyed with then there should be. As I said all things that have been altered shouldnt be lumped together with HDR imaging. I guess its like a purist photographer who doesnt like the use of Photoshop at all. Id like to see HDR images as they were intended.....really nice looking, better than, the single shot taken by the purist. We have to put up with the newbies that dont know any better and we try to show them the way to achieve those results. But where do we draw the line at what we accept in the HDR FORUM? The overcooked look is bad enough and hopefully just a fad. There is a painterly look which I really like. But none of it has anything to do with HDR except that to get to the stage where we can actually see an HDR image we have to tone map it. And there is the problem. Too many Stevie Wonders out there tone mapping images that look dog awful. I had to step in here since you are one of the more numerous posters in the forum and I wouldnt like to see more of this kind of stuff which has nothing to do with HDR imaging. Now this is just my opinion. Im sure there are some who will disagree. By the way, in that other forum for files that have been monkeyed with, Id say I like your chilli truck and it would probably make a pretty good OOB.

And I think it's a safe bet that the opinions of others is that this forum will suffice nicely.

I don't get the impression that "all things altered" are lumped together here. In fact, I'd be willing to be that you're in a profound minority there. Complaining that allowing it "gives HDR a bad name" is just silly. It's really silly.

Personally, I'll continue to post my tone mapped images here until such a time as a moderator directs me not to, or a forum, specifically for tone-mapped images, is set up...