A True HDR photo " The

[SCraig]

You're making the assumption, then, that people who post the heavily-cooked stuff are unable to provide input, and that's kinda' silly. Just because they post one thing doesn't mean they don't know how to do the other. Making that assumption could cost you some valuable input...

Possibly, but I'm willing to take that chance.

 

[Gaerek]

True HDR = Image with a Dynamic Range higher than what could ordinarily be captured by a sensor.

HDR is not a technique. It's not a style. It simply describes the dynamic range of a shot. Whether you got this high dynamic range through tonemapping, manually blending, or one of the many other techniques is irrelevant.

If you don't like heavily tonemapped images (and I'm not a fan, but there are some I really enjoy) that's fine, it's your opinion. But they are STILL HDR's.

The only image that people routinely call HDR that is not is the "faux HDR" that requires a single RAW shot, made into multiple shots of differing exposure, then re-blended together.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to understand.

 

[inaka]

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

Your words were prophetic. Lol.

I saw this train coming a mile away...

See, here is the issue. Photography is a technical art. Thus, you're always going to have those who appreciate more of the technical "purity" of photography, clashing with those who prefer the more "artistic" nature of photography.

I think the key that each side needs to remember is that there is no right vs. wrong, only preference.
And once one adopts that principle, I think the discussions here would be far less combative.

Just my take.

 

[Steve5D]

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.

Just a few points before I write the moderators:

1. As to the sky, you admitted that the photo of the sky wasn't yours, yet you failed to provide a proper credit. That's theft.

2. I stated, very early on, that I was quite new at HDR. Perhaps you can now whine about the need for a separate forum for newbies to HDR.

3. The description for the "GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY" specifically lists "HDR", but not "tone mapped":

Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery

A place to show off your post processing skills, with explanations on how you achieved the results, including specialty images such as HDR. Share information and techniques using Adobe's Photoshop and other popular graphics software.

Frankly, that's a far more appropriate section for HDR than it is for tone-mapped images.

4. Name calling is immature, and renders anything and everything of value you might have to offer meaningless, because no one pays attention to a whiner.

Now, I have to be honest, I enjoy posters like you. You make me laugh. Watching you blow a gasket, over and over, as you've done here is funny.

Keep it up...

 

[fjrabon]

fjrabon, I take back being pollitically correct. You really are an idiot. All HDR images are tone mapped otherwise there would be no HDR image to see. Its just when they are so heavily tone mapped or its a single file thats tone mapped and lumped together with a good HDR image that I think isnt right. Vip you are making divisions of bad HDR images with too many categories. And when I say bad HDR I dont mean bad image. The HDR forum should have only Photorealistic images as per your first category. That goes for both b&w and color since the idea is to have a broader dynamic range. Saturated HDR, Overcooked HDR, and Heavily processed HDR, all fall under the same category.....Digitally altered images. Now that is really simple. Thank you for clearing that up.

The point you still refuse to understand is that there simply isn't a non-arbitrary way to decide what is too much or too little tone mapping to qualify as TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx). You've not given any sort of clear cut guideline other than your own personal taste of 'garrish' and 'cartoonish'. I hate to repeat myself, but it's a point you seem to either be unable or unwilling to grasp. You've given several contradictory definitions of what you consider to be TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).

You know what's really simple? Any image made from multiple exposures blended together being allowed as HDR. That's simple. Guess what, that's more or less what we have now, and I'd be willing to bet it's what we will continue to have, as I don't see the mods feeling any need to satisfy your hissy fit by instituting your 'rules'. The only way you'd be satisfied is if you got to be the personal arbiter of what was allowed in the TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx) gallery.

 

[pixmedic]

Why cant we all just get along?
Like many forums and other places where people gather to express ideas and opinions, I think there is some expectation by the management of self policing.
Certainly we can all see where not doing so is going to lead. (hopefully). When locking threads that get out of control, or deleting certain comments is no longer
a deterrent to the constant barrage of insults and high school drama, I foresee a point where the Moderators will just start deleting whole threads at the first sign
of trouble. I don't think anyone really wants that. The more we censure and police our own spiteful rhetoric , the LESS the moderators will have to, And the MORE freedom we will have here to express ourselves. just saying.


:cheer:

 

[vipgraphx]

WOW folks after all this I think we need to all sit down and ponder for a bit this would be a great time to post this picture


bench to study by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

5 exposures, merged in photomatix, post processed in photoshop and nik color effex.

 

[inaka]

WOW folks after all this I think we need to all sit down and ponder for a bit this would be a great time to post this picture


bench to study by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

5 exposures, merged in photomatix, post processed in photoshop and nik color effex.

Me likely. Nice shot.

 

[Bynx]

If nothing else comes of this thread at least there are a couple of good HDRs posted. The last one could have used 7 exposures, one on each end of the scale. But it doesnt look bad.

 

[inaka]

Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:


Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr

Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
Just wondering...

 

[Compaq]

For the love of God, fjrabon, would you stop the "copyright bynx" thing? You come off as an a.hole. Truly, you speak of how immature Bynx is acting. Act like an adult yourself, then.

Some folks are HDR purists, lets just respect that. I agree that images which totally rely on its processing, are indeed not "true HDRs". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the "definition" that many people here have written. Read this for more information about what it truly is: HDR images in photography - About Dynamic Range, Tone Mapping and HDR Imaging for Photography

Vip's picture rely on its heavy processing (in my eyes). The same does my digger. These are not HDR shots the way the technique was supposed to be used. Bynx has already explained its initial use. At a certain point, the original photograph stops being a photograph, and a piece of digital art. I suppose it's up to each and everyone to set that line themselves. Photojournalists have extremely strict rules for what they can use. Us private people, shooting for ourselves, define our own line. I'm willing to admit that my final image may not be classified as a "photograph". Maybe "digtal art rooting from photographs" is more correct. I don't know.

The whole debate it pointless at the given point. You people need to take in what Bynx is saying. There are truths there. And Steven, you claim to be a beginner with HDR imagery, yet you debate as if you know much and more, claiming things to be truths. Calling theft, that's just plain stupid, and totally beside the point of the thread.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:


Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr

Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
Just wondering...

I like it. Nice!

 

[vipgraphx]

Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:


Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr

Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
Just wondering...

I would not say this is over cook but its all relative right?

 

[Compaq]

Overcooked relative to what?

 

[Steve5D]

For the love of God, fjrabon, would you stop the "copyright bynx" thing? You come off as an a.hole.

Agreed.

It should really be "© Bynx"...

You people need to take in what Bynx is saying.

No, we really don't. When he starts calling people "stupid" and "dickhead", it's safe to rightly assume that he has nothing of value to offer...

And Steven, you claim to be a beginner with HDR imagery, yet you debate as if you know much and more, claiming things to be truths.

What have I claimed are "truths"?

Link(s), please.

If you look back, I'm not debating what does and doesn't look good in images or why. What I'm debating is the apparent belief by Bynx that he reigns supreme here and should decide what does and does not belong.

I won't even mention the fact that the very gallery he states should be used for tone-mapped images SPECIFICALLY states that it should be used for HDR's. It's doubtful you'll see Bynx mention it, either...

Calling theft, that's just plain stupid, and totally beside the point of the thread.

Is it?

Theft, whenever it occurs, she be exposed.

He didn't take that photo of the sky. He found it online; even admitted using Google to get it. He used it, and failed to attribute it to the person who actually took it.

If I did that with one of your images, you would be upset, and rightly so, because I would be guilty of stealing your image.

And that's exactly what Bynx did...