Palms in Water

[vipgraphx]

I like the image overall. But I think that the processing does not make the place look peaceful.

If that was the mood you were trying to achieve I think you failed. If not then no worries.

Keep in mind it was a gloomy day. Had there been sun shining in and nice blue sky with clouds processing would have been different.

What I think is peaceful and you may be totally different sides of the fence. I don't think I failed to what I think peaceful but I may have failed to what you think peaceful is. No worries just want to clear that up.

 

[Bynx]

That is certainly one definition, but really, "HDR" is literally, "High Dynamic Range" so why is not any image with a higher-than-normal dynamic range an HDR?

If its a photo realistic image then it is an HDR if it also has a higher than normal dynamic range. But if its not photo realistic then its just a tone mapped digitally altered image.

 

[o hey tyler]

When you post a good image I will be the first to say so. If its not, I will say that too.

So is the only thing that constitutes a "good image" the quality of the HDR treatment? That's kind of silly.

And I never talked about the good or bad aspects of the image from an artistic point of view. Not at all. I just referred to a good or bad HDR. Art is subjective. But a B&W image is only a B&W image no matter what else you want to call it.

Judging by the previous quoted sentence, that's not how it sounded.

You really have some wild ideas on what kind of "Imaging Authority" you are, IMO.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Based on the picture's merits alone, I would remove the vignette as it is not adding anything to this image, it appears that it is taking away.

 

[tirediron]

That is certainly one definition, but really, "HDR" is literally, "High Dynamic Range" so why is not any image with a higher-than-normal dynamic range an HDR?

If its a photo realistic image then it is an HDR if it also has a higher than normal dynamic range. But if its not photo realistic then its just a tone mapped digitally altered image.

I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to follow your train of thought.

 

[vipgraphx]

I dont understand the confusion about what an HDR image is. A composite image made up of 2 or more images taken with different shutter speeds, producing an image which has more detail in both the highlight and shadow areas than either of the images from which it came producing a lifelike photo realism. Anything else that doesnt fit that description is just heavy handed tone mapping and should be considered a digitally altered image and not an HDR image. Its the same as comparing a single image right out of the camera and saying its the same as one with a lot of Photoshopping. They may have started out the same but its where they end up that determines whether its a photo or a digitally altered image. So one does not have to be qualified to determine if a tone mapped image is a good HDR or a good digitally altered image. (Read that as bad HDR.) There is a place for each. In my opinion.

And I never talked about the good or bad aspects of the image from an artistic point of view. Not at all. I just referred to a good or bad HDR. Art is subjective. But a B&W image is only a B&W image no matter what else you want to call it.

So Bynx why did you post these images in the HDR forum....(you need to click the link to be taken to original post) its worth it!

Wouldn't this be considered digitally altered bad HDR that should be in an appropriate forum? THis is way out there and lost all the range one would expect to see in a good HDR by your definition.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/208862-scarboro-bluffs.html

Or this thread where you added a cut on your face...I believe this would be a single tonemapped image that has been digitally altered as well. Its not realistic at all since you added that cut and its far from looking like a
real photo.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/211347-portrait-ala-dexter.html


Just saying....I am not confused on what HDR is and as much as I have tried standing up for you I am also getting a little bit bothered that everything posted has to meet your standards to be excepted here.
Its getting a bit old........you should practice what you preach sir.

quote taken out of your post

Thanks LaFoto. This reminds me that sometimes we take all this too seriously and its good to just goof off once in a while.

I think you need to remember your quote......now that its getting to serious

 

[Bynx]

Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR. And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one. You have done that and now are going 10 steps back. In my opinion. Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.

 

[dandaluzphotography]

Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR. And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one. You have done that and now are going 10 steps back. In my opinion. Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.

Angry Angry Angry. Relax man. You need to grab a, what'd you call 'em in your day? A doobie? A doobie and chill.

 

[vipgraphx]

Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no.

Why would you even have to ask?

Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?

My point is even you are guilty of doing this before and maybe this would help you remember that.

The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR.

Point is this is not HDR it is a digitally altered image in your own words.

And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one

.

Yes so maybe you could go a little easier on some of the newer folks to the forum and allow them the learning curve.

Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.

I am rested easy I just think its about time for you to stop taking this to seriously. Really a vignette in this image does not make this HDR a good or bad one?? Thats just silly. Its personal opinion and all the ingredients are all there for a nice HDR.

You can post if you like on in my threads I don't mind however I will do my homework and help bring you back to reality.

 

[nineoneeighttony]

Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR. And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one. You have done that and now are going 10 steps back. In my opinion. Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.

Angry Angry Angry. Relax man. You need to grab a, what'd you call 'em in your day? A doobie? A doobie and chill.

lol, if he did that he might over process something

 

[vipgraphx]

 

[JAC526]

I like the image overall. But I think that the processing does not make the place look peaceful.

If that was the mood you were trying to achieve I think you failed. If not then no worries.

Keep in mind it was a gloomy day. Had there been sun shining in and nice blue sky with clouds processing would have been different.

What I think is peaceful and you may be totally different sides of the fence. I don't think I failed to what I think peaceful but I may have failed to what you think peaceful is. No worries just want to clear that up.

Fair enough. Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder as these HDR threads have certainly proven.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Are we having this agument AGAIN?

This has gotten to the point that the debate is no longer about HDR rather, it is a personal battle disguised as an HDR conversation.
Let’s give it a break. There is nothing to be gained by the back and forth slaps.
Bottom line is, if everyone did their HDR’s exactly the same, what would be the point? And, and HDR done poorly is still and HDR. The debate is just plain silly and juvenile.