Electric Bicycle

[Bynx]

An hour from TO. Is that N, E or W?

 

[oldmacman]

An hour from TO. Is that N, E or W?

NW

 

[manaheim]

Nice to see the original... shows what the HDR did.

 

[UUilliam]

this does not look like it needed any hdr, sure, dark subject / light background, just using fill flash would have helped.

+ for "true" hdr you need 5 exposures (-2 -1 0 -1 -2) as the human eye sees 5stops more in the range of colour /tone than the camera does!

the camera only sees 11 ev and the eye is something like 20ev

therefore you need 5 different exposures for "real life." (in situations you can't just compensate by bringing up light values.)

 

[Bynx]

When I do my HDR I usually use my Fuji and do anywhere from 3 to 9 shots depending on the lighting but in this case I used my Nikon with auto bracketing 3 shots. There is no rule that dictates 5 shots. But it is a good recommendation since I find 3 is usually never enough. Whether this photo needed HDR or not is irrelevant. If it was a single shot with flash as you say, it wouldnt be posted in the HDR section. And your criticism should be limited to what is presented and not how it was produced.

 

[manaheim]

I think your telling people what is and is not appropriate for critique is kind of off.

There are no rules here saying what they have to confine their critique to.

 

[Bynx]

I think your telling people what is and is not appropriate for critique is kind of off.

There are no rules here saying what they have to confine their critique to.

This is becoming a habit now. For the second time in a row I have to agree with you. But it really pisses me off when people say any given photo doesnt need to be HDR. No photo HAS TO BE HDR. But those we chose to do shouldnt be questioned as to whether it needs to be or not. I dont know why this point irks me so much. But it is just the attitude Im getting that because it was done HDR and might not have needed it that there is some incompetence, shortness of skills, or inability to get it "right" without it and its used as a "fixit" for those lack of skills.

 

[bigtwinky]

HDR in today's photography world is just as selective colouring was years back... its what is "in". So alot of people associate HDR with a standard new comer to photography who doesn't know better and just HDRs (or tone maps) the crap out of images.

When someone posts an HDR shot, the immediate reaction is that this person is just doing it because they think its cool and in and adds some funk to their images.

Which is obviously not always the case.

Thats why I think the first comment most HDR images that dont "need' HDR gets is "this didnt need HDR".

I consider HDR as a tool. Like any other tool, it can be applied in any situation with varying effectiveness. Someone once told me that I should use a hammer to put in a nail. Hell, I'll use a screw driver if I want. Same result, different path, chance to learn and try something different (ok, tool analogy sucks, but you get what I mean.)

What was the question? Was there a question? Am I rambling? Where are my pants?

 

[Bynx]

I think you got it bigtwinky when you said HDR is the new "in" thing and people new to it are using and abusing it. It has permanently changed my outlook towards my picture taking and I will always be using it. Not all the time or in every case. But with every shot I will be looking at it from what the benefits will be if I did it one way or the other. Meanwhile I will still experiment with it, as in this case with the bike. Needed or not, its just my way of getting to know what it is capable of and showing the results.

 

[Provo]

Regardless the trend has now been with most photography site's that when someone create's a new thread and present's his/her image everything is based off the first comment. If the comment is positive then the majority will jump in and post positive msg and critique if negative they follow with axe's and pitchforks.

 

[Bynx]

Regardless the trend has now been with most photography site's that when someone create's a new thread and present's his/her image everything is based off the first comment. If the comment is positive then the majority will jump in and post positive msg and critique if negative they follow with axe's and pitchforks.

Oh you noticed that too eh. :thumbup:

 

[manaheim]

Big. You know you're getting old when you have no idea where you are... and neither does the pig wearing your pants.

I think your telling people what is and is not appropriate for critique is kind of off.

There are no rules here saying what they have to confine their critique to.

This is becoming a habit now. For the second time in a row I have to agree with you. But it really pisses me off when people say any given photo doesnt need to be HDR. No photo HAS TO BE HDR. But those we chose to do shouldnt be questioned as to whether it needs to be or not. I dont know why this point irks me so much. But it is just the attitude Im getting that because it was done HDR and might not have needed it that there is some incompetence, shortness of skills, or inability to get it "right" without it and its used as a "fixit" for those lack of skills.

I think I may be more coherent lately because some other guy I know who always gets mad at me keeps agreeing with me as well. Don't worry. It's a phase, I'm sure it will pass.

I, for one, try pretty hard to not make the comment about it not "needing" to be HDR because I know it ticks you off so badly... but in truth, and particularly on this thread, I looked pretty carefully at your original and your HDR and said to myself "Huh... look at that. You know he really DID pull out some detail that wouldn't have been visible without the HDR... particularly in the leaves." Now, I don't know how much value there was in that, but there was absolutely a difference, and it tempered my view somewhat on the "didn't need to be HDR" thing. *shrug*

Anyway... one thing you may consider trying is just putting a blurb in your posts saying what you are and are not looking for from folks for feedback. I find that usually people respect it, and when folks don't usually someone else will yell at them for it.

 

[Bynx]

Going into the HDR forum and telling people their picture doesnt have to be HDR is like going into the travel forum and telling people who post pictures of nice looking places far far away that they didnt have to be so far away.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Going into the HDR forum and telling people their picture doesnt have to be HDR is like going into the travel forum and telling people who post pictures of nice looking places far far away that they didnt have to be so far away.

No. I think it's more like telling someone who used a 1/2" impact to change a bicycle tire that they would have been better off with a ratchet.

 

[Bynx]

Going into the HDR forum and telling people their picture doesnt have to be HDR is like going into the travel forum and telling people who post pictures of nice looking places far far away that they didnt have to be so far away.

No. I think it's more like telling someone who used a 1/2" impact to change a bicycle tire that they would have been better off with a ratchet.

What you imply by that is the person is stupid for using too large a tool. My analogy was inferring that it was the one who made the statement was the stupid one.