Manhole Cover HDR

[Fedaykin]

This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.

I so agree with you here, but the problem is that sometimes people just can't help themselves to be nothing but annoying kind of like a tick.

But the best moments here come from the ones who like to critique everyone else work but when they post their own workings they often fall short of the same people they were giving input in the first place. Not saying in this post but in general. LOL it's almost as if they compliment the other people's work when they post their own I love this place.

Again, why does one's abilities have any bearing on one's understanding of what is good or not. I've never said my pictures are better. If I post a picture and everyone says it's crap(and that has happened) I concede the point. Heck most of the time if I know it's crap I"ll express so myself in the post.

But yes, let's agree to disagree, as you some of you seem incapable of accepting any negative criticism, or understanding its merit; you simply choose to employ inane arguments and insinuations. Sorry for derailing your thread OP.

 

[photo28]

ghpham, I looked back a few months and dont see any HDR posts from you. Or any from manheim for that matter. What is it you are offering here? Some HDR experience? The photo posted by the OP is HDR. If you see photos posted which arent HDR then take up your problem with them. Im as opposed to bad HDR use as anyone. Ive said enough about the negativity by people that dont do HDR and encourage others to not do it too so this is my last post in this OPs thread.

total fail.

 

[Hugo Leung]

I'm supportive of you using HDR in this case. The lighting feels more... solid with HDR. I've been noticing this on a lot of my own HDR photos, where there are a lot of subtle lighting and saturation changes that are difficult to emulate with curves.

 

[Bynx]

Well Hugo understands. Dont you wish everybody did?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Manaheim is still obsessed with HDR being done HIS way... Maybe his first name is Frank.

Sorry Man of Heim, but if you hate those shots so much why do you keep commenting on them? And why does someone who claims to want and become more artsy so stuck on the "correct" way of doing things?

Should we look at your photos and hammer you over the head about every little stupid artsy thing you do? You're going to be bloody pulp very soon.

I don't disagree with you that HDR was not necessary here but so what? You are not a god of photography. Get over yourself. And, no, I don't think I'm a god of photography either but I'm a bit more lenient than you are. Probably because my first shown photos were ten times worse, technically speaking, than this kind of mild HDR.

In art, there is no rule. Get over it.

 

[manaheim]

Ohhhhhhhhh my god, people.

I didn't say he did it wrong... not even close.

I merely said that he could have accomplished the same result using different and simpler tools.

I pretty much stopped commenting further when bynx said he likes blowing up ants with a shotgun because, really, if that's what you wanna do... hey... go nuts. Seems like overkill to me, but whatever floats your boat.

I find it extremely comical that the people that spend so much time complaining that people are "all here to be all negative and stuff" just automatically assume that anyone providing a counter-point or a different approach is somehow attacking them or their artistic choices.

Seeeeeeeeriously need to get the chip off your shoulders.

 

[JBLoudG20]

The comments made in this thread have driven me to participate elsewhere.

 

[Hugo Leung]

No, manaheim, you dont get it. You cant accomplish the same results, only very similar ones with curves. His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.

 

[manaheim]

No, manaheim, you dont get it. You cant accomplish the same results, only very similar ones with curves. His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.

Thank you, Hugo, for your excellent demonstration of a failed logical construct in action.

[para] "Because you didn't, you cannot."

Just because I didn't accomplish the exact same results, doesn't mean I can't, Hugo. My point was to show how close I could get in so short a time using the most basic tools. The logical thing is to interpolate that with just slightly additional work that you can achieve the same result.

And again... the point here is not that using HDR is wrong... the point that it is overkill if your desired end result is the image we have seen in this thread.

If your desired end result happens to be playing with HDR, then, well... mission accomplished! What-ever.

*shakes head*

This has all become extremely silly.

I'm so done with this foolishness.

I'll go away now so you guys can cut your lawns with chainsaws in the name of artistic license.

Have fun!

 

[Bynx]

Manaheim, dont let the door hit your @33 on the way out. No place for arrogance or stupidity here.

 

[Arch]

Guys please, i think we can all agree that there will always be 2 sides of the fence when presented with a HDR or pseudo HDR image.

As i have expressed before, it is not really the image itself that causes the problem, but the personal response from the viewer. If the image can 'connect' with you on any level then it may be pleasing to you, but possibly in a way which doesn't speak to others.

For example, as we saw in another recent thread which showed an image of a wooden walkway with water beneath, an image like this would work better for me as a natural photograph, as what i look for in an image like this is a personal interpretation which provokes my response. On this occasion natural light on wood provokes the feeling of summer days/evenings living by the coast. The HDR treatment took that away for me.
Alternatively, for someone who enjoys looking at patterns and textures, the image may be a complete success.
Its the old, eye of the beholder argument.


In this example the image can be created without using the HDR process, so the 2 sides of the fence are created again, but not for the same reasons as the above mentioned image.
The problem i think we have here is the some believe that the OP would benefit from learning the faster and more basic way of achieving this result. Others believe that the HDR process can be used for the same purpose, which of course, it can.

Neither way of thinking is wrong, let me make that clear.
The trouble, as i see it, is that people want newbies to learn things the right way.. and HDR is no exception.
The basic rule for understanding the original purpose for HDR is know why it was created... which also answers the same question, what was it for?

The most easy to understand answer to this question is to picture a church interior. The dynamic range of the available inside light, compared to the light bursting through the stain glass windows creates an impossible range to capture in one image. This type of situation is the best use for HDR.

However, as with many forms of technology and software, new ways of using it become mainstream.
On a forum this size, it just has to be accepted that other ways to use HDR software will become a weekly occurrence.

My personal advice to anyone wanting to start using HDR techniques is to try and learn as much about photography and basic editing techniques first. This includes the use of equipment, like an ND grad for landscapes for example. It is only then that you will question your need to use more time consuming methods.
I am aware though that people certainly can get lucky and make very nice images using Photomatix with very little knowledge of editing programmes.

In short, you can either see something which provokes a response in these images shapes/patterns, or the images become lifeless.
Both can be argued until the cows come home, but neither will come out on top. Another sign of the times.

 

[Bynx]

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say Arch. But this is the HDR thread. People should expect to see anything and everything done by one method or another to create an HDR image. Or even images which arent true HDR but attempt to replicate it in detail and or colors. Constructive criticism is always welcome and encouraged. But just saying "I dont like it" isnt helpful. And even worse is when someone says not to do it that way, do it my way. Whether its easier or not sometimes its just fun to try something new. So someone spends an hour or more on a pic that could have been done in 10 minutes some other way, so what. Whose time was wasted? And saving time isnt the point of this thread. Its to show the results of the time spent.

 

[Arch]

I do agree with you that the image should be taken for what it is and appreciated or criticized despite what technique was used to create it. However i also think that from the OP's perpective it would also be useful to be shown how else a similar result can be made. It is after all, a learning environment as well as a show gallery.
As for people who just say, 'i don't like it' or give a similar but equally unhelpful response, its something this whole forum could do without!

 

[Bynx]

While Womec might appreciate being shown another way of doing something, personally, I dont know Womec's skill level and wouldnt presume to suggest a different way. I find HDR fun to do and the best thing to come along to me since I left 35mm photography a number of years ago. It irks me when someone comes into the HDR forum and says dont do HDR, here is an easier way. I didnt see anyone ask for an easier way. So any comments should have been made on the results of the post and not on how it was done. Perhaps suggest another way if wanted. But Ive seen too many posts by people who dont have a true grasp of HDR suggesting to not go that route. Now if I was the only one using HDR that would be ok with me then maybe after a hundred years people would call it the Bynx style. But its not going away and is more popular each day. One day cameras will have an HDR setting and all the work will be done in camera. But for now Photomatix and a couple other software will do just fine. Often with Photoshop as a tweaker.

 

[bigtwinky]

This forum is all about discovering options and different ways to do things. You can take the advice given and try it, or you can stick with your way of doing things.

I assume anyone posting something is not only asking for artistic impressions and comments on the image they posted, but also on the process they used to get the image, the settings they used in camera to capture the image and the thought process they had prior to hitting the shutter.

I often see people take someone's image (when allowed) and actually manipulate it in different ways in post processing to get either a different effect, or make a dirty image cleaner. Sometimes using various softwares or techniques that are not known to the original poster.

No one knows everything. But when a community comes together to put its collective knowledge in the same pool, its a great resource of information and learning for everyone. Its up to the individual to do what they want with it, but putting the info out there is the first step.

If one choses not to presume knowing someone's skill level (no one here knows anyone else's true skill level - we are on the interwebz) and thus doesn't want to offend by suggesting something new, that is fine. I totally think the opposite. If I don't know someone's skill level, instead of not saying anything, I prefer to put out the limited info I know and let the posters take it for what it is. If they know it and I post it, no harm no foul and other people might read and benefit. If they don't know it and I don't post it, then no one ends benefiting from being in an online community like this.

Meh, just my 2 cents on this wonderous thread.