A True HDR photo " The

[Steve5D]

Its clear what HDR is. Its because you think it isnt clear is the problem here. An image made up of TWO or MORE images taken with different shutter speeds so the total dynamic range is greater than either of the shots with which it is made. If the processing is done with some finesse then you end up with a great image which should look better than any single image taken of the scene. Any further processing in Photoshop, which is always necessary after going through Photomatix, to improve the clarity, sharpness, or saturation of color is just part of the process.

So, if one uses the same shutter speed, but a different aperture, that wouldn't fall under your heading HDR?

And I'm still waiting for clarification on the whole cat issuse...

I guess the problem we have is trying to split what is just poorly processed versus what is processed for some output which is not so much HDR as a creation by the OP. Its those 'creations' like Vips chilli truck that should be in their own folder.

See, that's the thing, Bynx. "We" don't have a problem with it. You do.

You're demanding that everyone adhere to the criteria that you deem appropriate. If there's no specific folder for tone-mapped images, I'd be willing to bit that you're the only person who really has an issue with them being posted here. I haven't seen another soul complain about it. One would need to wonder if you've only complained about it here (which is getting old, by the way), or if you've petitioned management about the creation of a tone-mapped forum. If you have petitioned them for that, and they've deemed it unnecessary, you really need to just accept that and move on...

Meanwhile HDR images that are just poorly processed can get the info on how to process them properly. To give out that info it would be nice to have a standard practice of posting the middle shot along with the HDR image so everyone can see where it started from. Im guilty for not doing this, but its always a good idea, especially for those that say the image doesnt look like an HDR, or that HDR processing wasnt necessary.

If someone is specifically asking for a critique, I can see the value of providing the middle image. If someone is just posting their photo to share it, there's no reason to. Why should we stop at doing this for HDR images? Maybe we should demand that every photo posted anywhere on The Photo Forum be accompanied by the original, unprocessed image?

For instance, on my shot of the USS Recruit (the one in which you re-edited with a stolen picture of a sky), I wasn't asking for any critique whatsoever; I just wanted to share the image. Someone commented on the sky, so I asked about how to fix it. You chimed in with a stolen sky. That was both unwarranted and unwanted, as you didn't offer a single suggestion of how to fix it. You could've said "Well, I stole a picture of the sky I found on the internet and dropped it into your image" instead of asking for the original images. Why didn't you provide a separate image of the photo you stole, with the ship in it, to show what that originally looked like?

 

[Bynx]

Steve, unfortunately you are too obtuse to deal with. First off if you take multiple images with the same shutter speed and change the aperture you sure wouldnt have an HDR image. You would have a bunch of images which wouldnt fit. So you dont understand the basics of photography as well as HDR. As for the cat issue again you are being stupid. Of course if the image was an HDR shot of a cat then it would be ok. Just not a single shot of the cat. And since I dont like cats I just used that as an example. Now is that too hard to understand? Yes I do have a problem with seeing Vips truck in the HDR forum. If you understood HDR or knew how to create one instead of jumping back at me for trying to see things cleaned up things would be better. Why not spend your time learning how to make one then come back and mouth off. There IS a folder for over processed tone mapped images. GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY. How many times do you have to read that for it to sink in. Again you are being obtuse. The thing with HDR images is that sometimes its hard to understand why it was shot as an HDR until you see the 0EV photo and see the difference. But if you knew anything about HDR you might know this. As for your boat shot, you childishly make reference to stolen 3 times. One pic is worth a lot of explanation. I quickly dropped a sky in that suited your image. I didnt know how obtuse you are and so assumed you would see that just by dropping in a real looking sky was all that was necessary to convert a bad image into one that wasnt so bad. What a waste of time that was. Now you have the opportunity to rant at me some more or go out with your camera and shoot an HDR or even better, pick up a book on the principles of photography and increase the things of which you are unaware like aperture and its effect on depth of field.

 

[fjrabon]

the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR. Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures. However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery. You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it. There's just not.

Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it. I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it. If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx). Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.

 

[mjhoward]

What you have done is not really a HDR photo, it is a composite. Technically, when it comes to actual HDR photos, none of them are viewable on a monitor which is why they must be tone-mapped. The tonemapped version is acually LDR, not HDR. Regardless, I really like your photo and it looks much better than any tone-mapped version of it that I could imagine.

 

[Bynx]

I agree completely but I guess the HDR forum should be for the boring stuff. Thats why there is the other forum for Graphics Programs Photo Gallery. Its to show off those experimental things you we all do.

Again, nobody said it was boring...

It was a conversation between Vip and myself. He understands. Whether you do or not.....well its understood that you dont. Does the word obtuse mean anything? Its a shame Steve because it would have been so much fun helping you better your photographic, Photoshop and HDR skills. Maybe there is someone here that will do that. Just not me.

 

[Bynx]

I took the liberty and tonemapped it for you.

Your welcome.

haha I like yours better. I just did this to stir the pot.

Hey nos, while you may have added more tone mapping the image still falls into the realm of HDR. It doesnt look garrish, or too much. It looks like it may have been taken on a not so dark full moonlit nite.

 

[pixmedic]

I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx, sorry 'bout that.

 

[fjrabon]

I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx, sorry 'bout that.

The problem with what you just said is that those two things are not mutually exclusive. An image can be both created from multiple exposures, and heavily tone mapped. EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER I'VE EVER KNOWN will refer to heavily tonemapped images that were created from multiple exposures as HDR. However, that apparently doesn't work for Bynx. We need to create these rules that are at odds with how almost every book on HDR processing uses the term, just to satisfy Bynx, and confuse everybody else.

Bynx has admitted that some level of tonemapping is 'acceptable' by him, the great arbiter of TRUE HDR. He pretends as if there is an easy line to draw here, and that it is quite obvious to him exactly where that line is. However, he has given no criteria, other than vague notions like 'garrish' and 'cartoonish'. He refuses to admit that there is no clear way to figure this out. No firm way for a moderator to say "oh this passes the X threshold for HDR and must go in the graphics programs photo gallery."

 

[Bynx]

the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR. Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures. However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery. You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it. There's just not.

Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it. I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it. If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx). Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.

Im sure they have been monitoring this closely and instead of stepping in and doing it they are making the same assumption I am.....that people like yourself are too stupid to know which folder to put their photo in, so to keep it easy for you they just want to use the same pot so you dont get confused. It does solve seeing a repetition of "that doesnt belong here it should be in the other folder". I wonder why change is so hard to accept. Why is adding a new folder so difficult to accept or understand? I say this as I shake my fist at another really neat looking cloud that is floating by.

 

[fjrabon]

the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR. Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures. However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery. You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it. There's just not.

Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it. I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it. If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx). Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.

Im sure they have been monitoring this closely and instead of stepping in and doing it they are making the same assumption I am.....that people like yourself are too stupid to know which folder to put their photo in, so to keep it easy for you they just want to use the same pot so you dont get confused. It does solve seeing a repetition of "that doesnt belong here it should be in the other folder". I wonder why change is so hard to accept. Why is adding a new folder so difficult to accept or understand? I say this as I shake my fist at another really neat looking cloud that is floating by.

Really, you're calling people stupid because they don't agree with you that 'garrish' and 'cartoonish' aren't clear guidelines as to how much processing is too much processing to qualify as TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx)?

 

[Bynx]

I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx, sorry 'bout that.

Thanks pixmedic. Im glad the light is shining somewhere.

 

[Bynx]

I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.

An HDR image is just an ordinary plain image that has a greater dynamic range than a single shot which does make it special and deserving its own thread. Its unique and very limited in how it looks. Thats all. Why do you refuse to use a thread already set up for your creations? They might have started out as HDR images but through processing have gone beyond that to just digitally altered images and should be filed as such. The original aim of HDR was to create a more lifelike view of a scene that couldnt be shot in a single shot. Its intention wasnt to burn the eyeballs with blazing colors or to illustrate comic books.

Would a mod please step in and do something? Id prefer to help someone along and maybe get some help form someone than for this bickering to continue. It doesnt do any of us or this site any good. But it would be nice to have an HDR forum where the images look like really good photos and illustrate to those who think HDR is crap that good processing will produce a great image.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

have a feeling this thread will not end well...

Your words were prophetic. Lol.

 

[fjrabon]

I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.

Your combination of childishness and old man grumpiness is indeed rare sir. I commend you on finding a way to be this insufferable, it must truly take work.

 

[fjrabon]

have a feeling this thread will not end well...

Your words were prophetic. Lol.

It's not particularly hard to predict:

Does Bynx have an opinion that anybody disagrees with? Yes? It will get locked fairly soon by the mods as he starts calling people names like a small child that hasn't gotten his way.

there's been like 4-5 threads in the last few weeks that have been locked because bynx threw hissy fits and started calling people names.