HDRs in the News?

[MarcusM]

So I believe I've seen my first (that I know of) HDR in the news, on CNN's website, right on the home page:

{Image removed}

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/20/t1home.clunker.afp.gi.jpg

Firstly, does everyone agree that this looks like an HDR? (On a side note, it is a well-done HDR, not overly done)

Secondly, I have always thought that news organizations are to keep photo editing to an absolute minimum, in order to preserve the integrity of actual events/locations/people, etc.

What are your thoughts on the use of HDRs in the news?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Well, HDR does not change the story in the photo. Not quite the same as removing someone or something of that sort.

To new to digital to say if it looks like HDR for sure but I'll be interested in seeing what others think. I tend to think it is not.

 

[KmH]

This is clearly not your photo based on your question. You need to remove the photo and leave the link, per the rules of TFP. :thumbup:

Looks like the pushed the saturation a bit and did some other Photoshop processing in ACR.

 

[rufus5150]

My guess would be pushed the 'fill' slider up too far. It can give a look like that.

 

[KmH]

My guess would be pushed the 'fill' slider up too far. It can give a look like that.

I was thinking along those lines too.

 

[MarcusM]

This is clearly not your photo based on your question. You need to remove the photo and leave the link, per the rules of TFP. :thumbup:

Clearly - you are right. I clearly did not attempt to pass it off as my photo either. It said "AFP/Getty Images" right on the lower-right hand corner. I indicated I came across the image on cnn.com and did not say it was my image, but thanks for reminding me of the rules.

I went back and reread the rule - for some reason I had assumed that if you clearly did not attempt to pass the photo off as your own, and especially if it was going in the Photographic Discussion forum, that it was okay to post images that were not your own, but after rereading the rules I can see that I was wrong.

I guess I don't agree with the rule, unless you are attempting to pass off the photo as your own, and if I was the photographer I'd be flattered if I saw more people posting my image (provided of course they weren't passing it off as their own) ---since it would mean more exposure.

But, rules are rules. Image removed.

 

[MarcusM]

Oh, also, another reason I wanted to post the image itself is because I know how often cnn.com changes the images on their home page - they often only stay up for maybe an hour or so at the most before they are changed.

 

[Garbz]

Gone. A link to the actual photo would have sufficed. The front page is definitely useless.

 

[MarcusM]

Gone. A link to the actual photo would have sufficed. The front page is definitely useless.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/20/t1home.clunker.afp.gi.jpg

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I went back and reread the rule - for some reason I had assumed that if you clearly did not attempt to pass the photo off as your own, and especially if it was going in the Photographic Discussion forum, that it was okay to post images that were not your own, but after rereading the rules I can see that I was wrong.

I guess I don't agree with the rule, unless you are attempting to pass off the photo as your own, and if I was the photographer I'd be flattered if I saw more people posting my image (provided of course they weren't passing it off as their own) ---since it would mean more exposure.

But, rules are rules. Image removed.

The rule has to do with copyrights law, not just what the forum wants. By linking to a site where the image is in use you are merely directing us to to a site that is for public viewing and that has paid for use of the image. By posting the image, you are breaking the copyright laws.

You may sometimes use an image under the "fair use" part of the law but it is generally understood to apply only for educational purposes only. And although a lot of us are here to learn, TPF is not an education institution.

Cheers.

 

[Garbz]

My guess would be pushed the 'fill' slider up too far. It can give a look like that.

I was thinking along those lines too.

Now that I can actually see the image. It is definitely a HDR. You can tell with the characteristic halo between the car and the sky that just screams localised tone mapping. If you grab the fill slider it wouldn't have this ugly halo and would *ahem* probably look better.

 

[rufus5150]

Could have used the clarity slider. That can produce halos, too

 

[Garbz]

It does too! Never noticed that before. I rarely used it.

 

[Johnbear]

I wanted to post the image itself is because I know how often cnn.com changes the images on their home page











-