First time HDR

[Awiserbud]

HDR seems to be a taboo subject here, Lots of purists who cringe at the very mention of it, yes they are over-processed, but clearly natural wasn't the goal. for my money i quite like 3 and 4, as pieces of art they work well except for the horizon being pretty much in the centre of the frame (rule of 3rds purists may jump on that one too)
I wonder if you would have got the same responses if you hadn't mentioned the HDR processing.

Did you think we wouldn't have guessed? How stupid do you think we are?

I don't mind HDR. But if the first comment you make about a photograph is about the process, then it isn't a photograph but something else entirely.

My comment wasn't about the photograph at all...it was about the responses to the photograph/s, And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be. The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR, there are lots of still very underexpose segments, The excessive tones and unatural colours also have nothing to do with HDR they are just a result of over saturation or colour balance.

 

[Light Guru]

And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be.

If done well then yes that is true.

The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR

COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.

 

[thereyougo!3]

HDR seems to be a taboo subject here, Lots of purists who cringe at the very mention of it, yes they are over-processed, but clearly natural wasn't the goal. for my money i quite like 3 and 4, as pieces of art they work well except for the horizon being pretty much in the centre of the frame (rule of 3rds purists may jump on that one too)
I wonder if you would have got the same responses if you hadn't mentioned the HDR processing.

Did you think we wouldn't have guessed? How stupid do you think we are?

I don't mind HDR. But if the first comment you make about a photograph is about the process, then it isn't a photograph but something else entirely.

My comment wasn't about the photograph at all...it was about the responses to the photograph/s, And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be. The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR, there are lots of still very underexpose segments, The excessive tones and unatural colours also have nothing to do with HDR they are just a result of over saturation or colour balance.

Did you fail to spot the huge halos around the edges? Did you fail to spot the very obvious tone mapping? Really? *shakes head in disbelief*

Edited to Add: No disrespect intended to the OP. This was the OP's first attempt at HDR so was honestly asking a question.

Well executed HDR for me is difficult to spot. With some of today's cameras, it's not as necessary. I have found that I assumed I would need to use HDR and found that I could grab enough detail from shadows without giving away valuable IQ. My D800 and 645D are both very capable and have the dynamic range to deal with most situations.

 

[TordFuglstad]

You should go back to "normal".. HDR like this is making my eyes water..

 

[Buckster]

And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be.

If done well then yes that is true.

The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR

COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.

Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.

 

[thereyougo!3]

And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be.

If done well then yes that is true.

The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR

COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.

Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

 

[Buckster]

If done well then yes that is true.



COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.

Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

Thanks for your opinion. I'll put it right over there in the box marked, "opinions".

 

[Awiserbud]

If done well then yes that is true.



COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.

Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?

 

[thereyougo!3]

Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?

So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images. It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR. I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example. That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling. I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a GALLERY section. There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images. Not to debate what is or isn't HDR. These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped. I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for IMAGES, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.

 

[Buckster]

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?

So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images. It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR. I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example. That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling. I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a GALLERY section. There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images. Not to debate what is or isn't HDR. These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped. I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for IMAGES, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.

HDR and tonemapping aren't the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educate them when it comes up.

Here's another one to get bunched up over: OOF and Bokeh are not the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educated them when it comes up.

Like it or not, very few of us are interesting in coddling mistaken ideas, since it just adds to the confusion when people are trying to communicate with one another.

Suck it up, buttercup, 'cause it ain't gonna stop.

 

[Awiserbud]

Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions. You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about. I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever. I'm not interested in that. I'm more interested in what makes a good image. In my view none of those images are good. They are all over processed. The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI

well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?

So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images. It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR. I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example. That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling. I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a GALLERY section. There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images. Not to debate what is or isn't HDR. These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped. I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for IMAGES, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.

My initial post in this thread was based on what other people had already posted, "over-processed etc etc etc" and this is where HDR purists jump on people for adding a little art to their HDR images, yes i totally agree that an image should be based on the final results and taken for exactly what it is...At a local photography group photos are printed off and judged solely on the final image. Nobody asks what camera was used, what lens, or how was it processed, these things just arn't important. Hence why i made the comment would the OP have gotten the same "over-processed" comments if he had just posted the pictures without mentioning they were a result of HDR processing. I suspect he wouldn't because most of the responses were about the processing apart from a couple (of which i was included BTW) that mentioned other points.

Jeez.

 

[thereyougo!3]

well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?

So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images. It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR. I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example. That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling. I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a GALLERY section. There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images. Not to debate what is or isn't HDR. These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped. I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for IMAGES, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.

HDR and tonemapping aren't the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educate them when it comes up.

Here's another one to get bunched up over: OOF and Bokeh are not the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educated them when it comes up.

Like it or not, very few of us are interesting in coddling mistaken ideas, since it just adds to the confusion when people are trying to communicate with one another.

Suck it up, buttercup, 'cause it ain't gonna stop.

Get off your high horse talking down to me like a child. And keep your playground talk for the playground. Grow up. These discussions are for a general discussion thread. The OP was asking about his images. You turn it into a b1tchfest. Grow the hell up. I am not a buttercup and I know more about photography than you appear to give me credit for.

I see more discussion here than gallery images. So you are off topic. Grow up and learn some respect.

 

[Buckster]

So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images. It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR. I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example. That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling. I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a GALLERY section. There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images. Not to debate what is or isn't HDR. These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped. I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for IMAGES, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.

HDR and tonemapping aren't the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educate them when it comes up.

Here's another one to get bunched up over: OOF and Bokeh are not the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educated them when it comes up.

Like it or not, very few of us are interesting in coddling mistaken ideas, since it just adds to the confusion when people are trying to communicate with one another.

Suck it up, buttercup, 'cause it ain't gonna stop.

Get off your high horse talking down to me like a child. And keep your playground talk for the playground. Grow up. These discussions are for a general discussion thread. The OP was asking about his images. You turn it into a b1tchfest. Grow the hell up. I am not a buttercup and I know more about photography than you appear to give me credit for.

I see more discussion here than gallery images. So you are off topic. Grow up and learn some respect.

Stop acting like a child having a tantrum, and perhaps you'll stop being treated like one.

In other words, lighten up, Francis. :lmao:

 

[Sarmad]

The second image is beautiful, and has right amount of colors, for the other three you went a little overboard!

 

[thereyougo!3]

HDR and tonemapping aren't the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educate them when it comes up.

Here's another one to get bunched up over: OOF and Bokeh are not the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educated them when it comes up.

Like it or not, very few of us are interesting in coddling mistaken ideas, since it just adds to the confusion when people are trying to communicate with one another.

Suck it up, buttercup, 'cause it ain't gonna stop.

Get off your high horse talking down to me like a child. And keep your playground talk for the playground. Grow up. These discussions are for a general discussion thread. The OP was asking about his images. You turn it into a b1tchfest. Grow the hell up. I am not a buttercup and I know more about photography than you appear to give me credit for.

I see more discussion here than gallery images. So you are off topic. Grow up and learn some respect.

Stop acting like a child having a tantrum, and perhaps you'll stop being treated like one.

In other words, lighten up, Francis. :lmao:

You're the one directing the post at the poster rather than the issue.