Nissan GTR

[Steve5D]

I agree actually. This accusation didn't set well with me either.

And why should I care about that?

It's truly interesting. All I've done is be frank and honest in my opinion. This is something for which you laud Bynx for. The level of your hypocrisy is fascinating, actually. The one you admire and worship is free to be honest, but not someone you disagree with.

Fascinating...

 

[JAC526]

Could you point out an example of a personal attack?

That'd be swell, thanks...

You accuse him of having narcissistic personality disorder. I think that qualifies.

Unless you are a psychiatrist? Who has treated Bynx?

Didn't think so.

Do you believe that someone needs to be a psychiatrist to understand narcissism?

Do you believe that someone needs to be a mechanic to understand how the engine in an automobile works?

Do you believe that someone needs to be a comedian to know if a joke is funny or not?

The way he conducts himself here represents a pretty textbook case of narcissism. hey, that's just the way it is...

I believe that if you don't have anything nice to say you shouldn't say anything at all.

So how about you stop following Bynx around and attacking him everytime he says something negative about a photo?

Or better yet take MTV's suggestion and just mute him.

I am done with this thread. This guy.....

 

[Steve5D]

Actually, not really.

And yes. You do need to be a psychiatrist to make statements on another person's mental health. I thought you were kind of joking and let it slide, but apparently not.

Well, if you can counter every point I've made about him, you might have a point.

Until you do, your opinion means little...

 

[unpopular]

I just believe that the integrity of psychiatric medicine should be maintained, this is in the interest of advocacy not whatever your opinion is on Bynx.

And no. I don't think I've ever praised Bynx for anything. He's kind of my nemesis.

 

[Steve5D]

I believe that if you don't have anything nice to say you shouldn't say anything at all.

So you would agree, wouldn't you, that Bynx is out of line when he says someone's image is "horrible", or when he personally attacks someone?

So how about you stop following Bynx around and attacking him everytime he says something negative about a photo?

I don't follow him. In fact, he follows me.

I have an interest in HDR, and so does Bynx. Do you find it unusual that we would end up posting in the same threads here?

Or better yet take MTV's suggestion and just mute him.

Nah, the comedy quotient is too good to pass up...

I am done with this thread. This guy.....

See ya'...

 

[tirediron]

I'm not going to read through seven pages to figure out this whole thing, BUT let's stop the whole 'mental health' debate here and NOW!

Thank-you.

 

[Steve5D]

LOL!! Yeah, okay.

If someone gets decapitated and dies, it's probably a fair bet that the decapitation led to their death, wouldn't you agree?

I don't think you'd have to be a doctor to know that...

 

[unpopular]

No. It's more like looking at someone who appears sickly and determining that they have cancer because superficially it looks that way.

Being that, according to medscape.com, NPD has eleven differential diagnose I hardly think anyone could accurately make a NPD diagnosis via internet chat forums.

 

[rexbobcat]

Taking a single raw and making it 3 "exposures" BY DEFINITION is not hdr. Tonemapping a single raw most certainly is not HDR its tonemapping. Unless you're using multiple exposuresto create them then you BY DEFINITION are not creating HDR images. My camera allows for 400% in camera dynamic range capture by using 2 pixels side by side to capture 2 different dynamic ranges to merge into 1 photo. My camera prosuces extended range photos but does not do in camera HDR. I don't understand why people can't get the difference between extended range, high dynamic range, and tonemapping.

If an image has high dynamic range it is HDR, regardless of process. I'm not talking about extended range. I'm meaning that with some photos I can pull out all of the shadows and pull down the highlights to give it high dynamic range.

From hat I've read, there is no set definition of how HDR should be achieved.

Any image where you increase the dynamic range. An be considered HDR if you go by the general definition of having more dynamic range then your sensor/film can handle.

It's not defined as having detail in all the areas. If only I had a meme image of that. I understand the difference, but it's not some narrowly defined process.

There is an accepted form of processing that gives aesthetically pleasing results, but there is NO objective definition of how high the dynamic range has to be or what the workflow must be.

I will change my opinion if you find a reputable source that says that the image must have at least 15 EV of dynamic range to be considered an HDR.

 

[JAC526]

How do you mute someone? Going to take my own advice and mute Steve.

 

[Steve5D]

How do you mute someone? Going to take my own advice and mute Steve.

Oh no... Not that...

 

[unpopular]

How do you mute someone? Going to take my own advice and mute Steve.

Oh no... Not that...

Not arrogant at all.

 

[BlueMeanieTSi]

Now I want city chicken.

Back on topic, I consider a single image manipulated to show as stated is just an extended range.

 

[Steve5D]

Now I want city chicken.

Back on topic, I consider a single image manipulated to show as stated is just an extended range.

I've been going through a lot of photos that I've shot over the past few months; single shots taken without any consideration with trying to do HDR stuff with multiple images. The tone-mapping stuff is fun enough...

 

[JAC526]

Seriously though....how do I ignore him?

Every thread I've bothered reading I feel as if his contribution is poison. It is better to just not read what he says.

Someone help please?