Bowling ball

[fotomumma09]

No offense but I find the colours almost offensive to my eyes.

It is very unique though.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition. Those criticising should be focusing on the HDR and tone mapping aspects of the shot. The rest is your problem. You cant teach someone composition it is just something we have or we dont.

NooooOOoOoOo Bynx. Don't put the cart before the horse!

 

[Josh66]

What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?

 

[nos33]

What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?

it looks like the ghost of a bear or something

 

[nos33]

Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.)

Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)

Photography 101.

So basically everyone in the world shoots HDR because they have a lens on their camera? A fish eye lens can give me an HDR just as well as my 18-55 telephoto.

And your pictures hurt my eyes very much. I cant judge the composition or subject matter because all I can now see is Blue. I dont think I have ever seen nature look that way. I live in Utah and it does get VERY green around here and it still does not compare to the pictures you show here.

And you attitude needs to be reworked just a little. I dont care if you have 10 posts or 10,000 but your knowledge seems lacking about photography.

I have had a camera since i was 13 so that should make me a photographer right? And then I can say that I have 19 years photography experience.

Calm down with the way you treat people in here and learn what you can. I think I have gotten more negative criticism than good, but I dont treat people like crap. I take what they tell me and see if I can improve my process. If you look at the HDR pictures that I took while learning, they looked a lot like your "bowling ball" but I learned from the people in here and improved my process so now i look back to those older ones and I feel like i am doing better.

 

[Josh66]

What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?

it looks like the ghost of a bear or something

HAHA - that's exactly what I thought.

 

[Netskimmer]

This thread has to be a joke right? One of our more mischievous members started a new account to yank our collective chain.

 

[Trever1t]

It's Soblik... no, wait, he NEVER posted an image.

 

[SCraig]

Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph you'd likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR photograph.

So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)

Photography 101.

Soooo ...... If I shoot a photograph of a black bear at midnight with a wide angle lens and intentionally underexpose it by four or five stops then it is automatically an HDR image simply because I used a wide angle lens? I think not. Photography 101 (first week).

Oh, not that it means anything, but I got my first camera in 1963 so I think my "Right At 50 Years" trumps your "Over 40 Years".

 

[Josh66]

Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph you'd likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR photograph.

So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)

Photography 101.

Soooo ...... If I shoot a photograph of a black bear at midnight with a wide angle lens and intentionally underexpose it by four or five stops then it is automatically an HDR image simply because I used a wide angle lens? I think not. Photography 101 (first week).

Oh, not that it means anything, but I got my first camera in 1963 so I think my "Right At 50 Years" trumps your "Over 40 Years".

Nononono... You're misinterpreting him.

All he's saying is that The World in front of him was HDR, because he was using a wide angle lens. Remember - this is not a HDR photograph. This is simply a (non-HDR) photo of a HDR scene (the world).

 

[HughGuessWho]

Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph you'd likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR photograph.

So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)

Photography 101.

Soooo ...... If I shoot a photograph of a black bear at midnight with a wide angle lens and intentionally underexpose it by four or five stops then it is automatically an HDR image simply because I used a wide angle lens? I think not. Photography 101 (first week).

Oh, not that it means anything, but I got my first camera in 1963 so I think my "Right At 50 Years" trumps your "Over 40 Years".

Nononono... You're misinterpreting him.

All he's saying is that The World in front of him was HDR, because he was using a wide angle lens. Remember - this is not a HDR photograph. This is simply a (non-HDR) photo of a HDR scene (the world).

Right, now you have it, because "scenes shot with extreme wide angle lenses are HDR by nature". WTF??

 

[rexbobcat]

I always wonder what plane of reality people like this live on. Has logic forgone that realm of the human mind?

 

[Trever1t]

*Sigh*"Greens are way to(o) electric."You live in Tucson so I wonder if you've ever seen the greens of full spring in New England."the composition really is not good"The composition that you find "not good" was meant to be whimsical. You know. The ridiculous combination of nature and a bowling ball. Humor, see ?"Not good" is a meaningless critique of just about anything. But in comparison to "kinda whacky" it borders on brilliant !"its just not a good HDR"The dynamic range of the subject covered about nine zones. I believe that qualifies as a high dynamic range (HDR.) How could it be a not good HDR if it covers nine zones ?Perhaps you were substituting "HDR" for "HDR photograph." It's common to see this kind of mistake as people like to use contractions. If this is the case, than you should have written: "it's not a good HDR photograph." While grammatically correct, it's still meaningless because "good" isn't defined.Clear writing is vanishing from society at an alarming rate.

Now you march right back out that door and come back in here with a whole new attitude young man!

 

[prodigy2k7]

I think he means for example, with a super wide lens, you are more likely to capture the deep shadows and bright highlights of the world compared to a superzoom lens capturing only a small portion of the world around you.

Still, hes a weird one...

 

[Bynx]

In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition.

Oh that's right. I forgot composition doesn't matter in HDR images.

Foolish me!

I dont think comments about composition are very helpful in an HDR forum when the OP needs to learn about HDR itself and not be given opinions of composition. If there is nothing else to pick on then go for composition. Thats just my opinion.