Got ripped a new one for my first HDR try, how about the second try

[prodigy2k7]

If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR.

That used to be true, but now people use it in different ways. I like this effect, doesn't make it anymore or less art.

 

[DennyCrane]

KmH, we're discussing his HDR photo. This seems an appropriate place. And, if you notice, he did not request a critique, although critiques were offered by others... and you as well.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Beyond the Basics (80 Viewing) Have you been at photography for awhile? This is the forum for more advanced discussion of photography, such as exposure methods, lighting, HDR, and other techniques and controls!

 

[ghpham]

What does the original photo looks like prior to HDR being applied?

 

[mrpink]

again with the eff-ing train yards and car shoots.... I do not get it at all. My eye instantly goes to the train which is not the intended subject.





p!nK

 

[kkamin]

The background is distracting and over-powering.

I don't think a train yard is fitting art direction for what you are going for imo.

The first image looks a bit flat, despite the HDR work. I would think that you could get a proper exposure in that overcast light with one picture, so it sort of doesn't make sense to me why you would choose an HDR process for it. The only thing I see it doing is bringing up reflections in the car to an artificial luminance level and it looks a little strange imo.

 

[Francis E. Marchiona]

I want a fkin BMW

 

[Garbz]

If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR.

HDR Done right in your eyes.

HDR Done right in his and you shouldn't really be able to tell it's not a fantasy drawing.


More often than not I agree with you, but this isn't a case of HDR to extend the dynamic range. In fact I'd wager that the tone fits into a single exposure anyway. This is HDR for the look of HDR. and it's done right.

Why?

I have a better question for you. Why not? Come up with a good reason why people shouldn't express creativity in the way they themselves see fit.

 

[Gaerek]

More often than not I agree with you, but this isn't a case of HDR to extend the dynamic range.

Do you know how silly that sounds? Let me repeat what you said, without using acronyms.

"...but this isn't a case of High Dynamic Range to extend the dynamic range."

Hmmmm....

Now, the reason this sounds so silly is because people are STILL using the term HDR incorrectly. This image is not HDR. It is tone mapped. HDR is a concept. Tone mapping is a technique. The technique used to get that look is called tone mapping, not HDR. You even basically said this in your post:

In fact I'd wager that the tone fits into a single exposure anyway.

Tone mapping is a technique that can be used to create an HDR image, but it is also a technique that can be used to create horribly ugly, un-realistic images, such as the one posted by the OP. By definition, this image is not HDR. It's not an HDR look. It is tone mapped. It is a tone mapped look. If you like the tone mapping look, then maybe this image looks alright. I for one cannot stand it. The technique looked cool to me the first, oh, one thousand times I saw it, but these last 99 thousand tone mapped images are getting a bit trite.

By the way, when Dieselboy stated, "If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR," he's completely correct. This image is not HDR, and it looks terrible because it's an over-processed tone mapped image. A true HDR image shouldn't have that look. It will simply have a dynamic range over what should normally be present for that particular scene.

Tone mapping != HDR

 

[Petraio Prime]

More often than not I agree with you, but this isn't a case of HDR to extend the dynamic range.

Do you know how silly that sounds? Let me repeat what you said, without using acronyms.

"...but this isn't a case of High Dynamic Range to extend the dynamic range."

Hmmmm....

Now, the reason this sounds so silly is because people are STILL using the term HDR incorrectly. This image is not HDR. It is tone mapped. HDR is a concept. Tone mapping is a technique. The technique used to get that look is called tone mapping, not HDR. You even basically said this in your post:

In fact I'd wager that the tone fits into a single exposure anyway.

Tone mapping is a technique that can be used to create an HDR image, but it is also a technique that can be used to create horribly ugly, un-realistic images, such as the one posted by the OP. By definition, this image is not HDR. It's not an HDR look. It is tone mapped. It is a tone mapped look. If you like the tone mapping look, then maybe this image looks alright. I for one cannot stand it. The technique looked cool to me the first, oh, one thousand times I saw it, but these last 99 thousand tone mapped images are getting a bit trite.

By the way, when Dieselboy stated, "If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR," he's completely correct. This image is not HDR, and it looks terrible because it's an over-processed tone mapped image. A true HDR image shouldn't have that look. It will simply have a dynamic range over what should normally be present for that particular scene.

Tone mapping != HDR

And it's crooked to boot.

 

[Gaerek]

More often than not I agree with you, but this isn't a case of HDR to extend the dynamic range.

Do you know how silly that sounds? Let me repeat what you said, without using acronyms.

"...but this isn't a case of High Dynamic Range to extend the dynamic range."

Hmmmm....

Now, the reason this sounds so silly is because people are STILL using the term HDR incorrectly. This image is not HDR. It is tone mapped. HDR is a concept. Tone mapping is a technique. The technique used to get that look is called tone mapping, not HDR. You even basically said this in your post:

In fact I'd wager that the tone fits into a single exposure anyway.

Tone mapping is a technique that can be used to create an HDR image, but it is also a technique that can be used to create horribly ugly, un-realistic images, such as the one posted by the OP. By definition, this image is not HDR. It's not an HDR look. It is tone mapped. It is a tone mapped look. If you like the tone mapping look, then maybe this image looks alright. I for one cannot stand it. The technique looked cool to me the first, oh, one thousand times I saw it, but these last 99 thousand tone mapped images are getting a bit trite.

By the way, when Dieselboy stated, "If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR," he's completely correct. This image is not HDR, and it looks terrible because it's an over-processed tone mapped image. A true HDR image shouldn't have that look. It will simply have a dynamic range over what should normally be present for that particular scene.

Tone mapping != HDR

And it's crooked to boot.

Ok, let me add another inequality then.

Tone Mapping + Tilting camera 45 degrees != Creative

That sound about right?

 

[Petraio Prime]

Do you know how silly that sounds? Let me repeat what you said, without using acronyms.

"...but this isn't a case of High Dynamic Range to extend the dynamic range."

Hmmmm....

Now, the reason this sounds so silly is because people are STILL using the term HDR incorrectly. This image is not HDR. It is tone mapped. HDR is a concept. Tone mapping is a technique. The technique used to get that look is called tone mapping, not HDR. You even basically said this in your post:

Tone mapping is a technique that can be used to create an HDR image, but it is also a technique that can be used to create horribly ugly, un-realistic images, such as the one posted by the OP. By definition, this image is not HDR. It's not an HDR look. It is tone mapped. It is a tone mapped look. If you like the tone mapping look, then maybe this image looks alright. I for one cannot stand it. The technique looked cool to me the first, oh, one thousand times I saw it, but these last 99 thousand tone mapped images are getting a bit trite.

By the way, when Dieselboy stated, "If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR," he's completely correct. This image is not HDR, and it looks terrible because it's an over-processed tone mapped image. A true HDR image shouldn't have that look. It will simply have a dynamic range over what should normally be present for that particular scene.

Tone mapping != HDR

And it's crooked to boot.

Ok, let me add another inequality then.

Tone Mapping + Tilting camera 45 degrees != Creative

That sound about right?

It sure does, Gaerek! And now a parting gift for our contestant!

 

[prodigy2k7]

I know plenty of non-photographers who would think this picture is cool. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters.

 

[djacobox372]

If an HDR's done right, you shouldn't really be able to tell it's an HDR.

Exactly!

 

[Garbz]

Now, the reason this sounds so silly is because people are STILL using the term HDR incorrectly. This image is not HDR. It is tone mapped. HDR is a concept. Tone mapping is a technique. The technique used to get that look is called tone mapping, not HDR. You even basically said this in your post:

Normally I'd be the first in by your side correcting you. People call anything HDR these days, in some cases images that didn't even go through tonemapping let alone get made from multiple exposures. But really I've given up caring. I'm still fighting a war getting people to not use PPI and DPI interchangeably when talking about prints.

Ok, let me add another inequality then.

Tone Mapping + Tilting camera 45 degrees != Creative

That sound about right?

Who said anything about creativity? It's just a look. **** man some of these type of images even win awards.

And it's crooked to boot.

Yeah but a) he said he was going for the effect so in his eyes it's straight, and b) you're a disrespectful idiot so what's your point.