# My HDR effect



## crumble (Nov 17, 2012)

I just thought i'd share a few random pics from the net with a HDR Effect I created added to them with the pics before and after the effect. I think its quite similar to the dave hill effect but anyway let me know what u think....sorry about the alignment of everything but for some reason on here I press enter to go down a line and it won't do anything but anyway....

*>>>>>** Photos Deleted *per forum FAQs. *<<<<<*


----------



## SUNR15E (Nov 17, 2012)

Are these pictures ones that you have taken yourself?? You said Random taken from the NET, So I am a little confused?

What method have you used? Are these HDR or is it an after effect added to give the impression of HDR?

SUNR15E


----------



## christop (Nov 17, 2012)

It's not HDR with a single exposure. It's as simple as that.

The scenes in these images have a low dynamic range (low contrast between shadows and highlights) that can be captured easily in a single exposure, so they wouldn't benefit from HDR techniques anyway. What you have done to the images could be described as tonemapping, which is partly what gives HDR images that "HDR look". But it's important to note that tonemapping is not HDR.


----------



## usayit (Nov 17, 2012)

Should not post photos that are not taken by you.

Looks like its a simple push of the contrast, fill light, and recovery sliders in lightroom.  The final result doesn't work for me.  Makes the young models look older more "tired".


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2012)

The original images are much better than their altered counterparts.


----------



## SUNR15E (Nov 17, 2012)

usayit said:


> Should not post photos that are not taken by you.


That would have been my next point....I understand the desire to play with effects. But take pics yourself and use them rather than use images you have not got the rights to use.



christop said:


> It's not HDR with a single exposure. It's as simple as that.


Yep fully agree but I was inquiring if they were genuine multi-shot or if they were an affect designed to mimic HDR.



pixmedic said:


> The original images are much better than their altered counterparts.


Yes they are obviously they were not worth messing with.

SUNR15E


----------



## crumble (Nov 17, 2012)

Damn u guys sure know how to rip the **** out of the attempt I've made! I have used random pics from the net that I am allowed to use, I meant its an effect I made using filters to make a kinda pseudo hdr effect  not a proper hdr image. It doesn't look so good on these examples but it works great on things like movie promos, which unfortunately I can't post here and wouldn't want to now anyway..


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2012)

crumble said:
			
		

> Damn u guys sure know how to rip the **** out of the attempt I've made! I have used random pics from the net that I am allowed to use, I meant its an effect I made using filters to make a kinda pseudo hdr effect  not a proper hdr image. It doesn't look so good on these examples but it works great on things like movie promos, which unfortunately I can't post here and wouldn't want to now anyway..



If you agree the effect doesnt look so good on the examples you posted,  why are you upset we said they weren't as good as the originals? Also,  you can get a HDR type effect on a single image by using tonemaping with a program like pbotomatix.


----------



## crumble (Nov 17, 2012)

I said they don't look as good, but as shambolic as you were making out.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2012)

crumble said:
			
		

> I said they don't look as good, but as shambolic as you were making out.



I just thought the originals were better.  I personally didn't think the effects were an improvement on the originals. If you think those effects are better suited for other types of pictures,  then it would make more sense to post those types than types that do not benefit from your processing. You are looking for feedback on a photography forum,  and then getting mad when you dont get the response you want. The forum is about feedback and learning, and if you are looking for fluffy feedback,  you are in the wrong place.  This is definitely a tell it like it is community.


----------



## crumble (Nov 17, 2012)

*>>>>>** Photos Deleted *per forum FAQs*. <<<<<*


----------



## crumble (Nov 17, 2012)

I would prefer for you to say something like this looks bad because and state what it is so it can be put right, instead of saying this is **** the originals are better, even if they are say why and help someone to get better at it.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2012)

I think your processing works much better on landscape pictures than with people.  It is not flattering on skin tones. I like the beach scene. You can see more contrast with the shadows and the clouds. It just darkens up people too much.


----------



## shefjr (Nov 17, 2012)

I like the landscape image. The images with people have a tin man, cold, starting to turn zombie like look to me. 

Just my opinion though.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 17, 2012)

crumble said:
			
		

> I would prefer for you to say something like this looks bad because and state what it is so it can be put right, instead of saying this is **** the originals are better, even if they are say why and help someone to get better at it.



Its hard to tell you how to fix something when we dont know what program you used to do it.  Or what effects in that program, and to what degree. For images with people... Dont do whatever it is you did to make the skin tones look grey and ashy. For landscape it looks fine,  but i personally wouldn't go any darker.


----------



## christop (Nov 17, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> The forum is about feedback and learning, and if you are looking for fluffy feedback,  you are in the wrong place.



That's what Flickr is for.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 17, 2012)

it doesn't matter if you are 'allowed' to use them.  It is against forum rules to post photos that are not yours.  It's a bright line rule, it doesn't matter if you got express permission to use them, it's still against forum rules to post any pictures that you yourself didn't take, or are an edit of a photo posted by another member, posted in the same thread as the original shots that the original owner posted them in.  

It's not bashing, they simply don't look very good.  In the image of the little girl and the young man, you made them both look like sort of creepily aged versions of themselves.  The young blonde lady you've made her look oily and sickly.  

You asked us to let you know what we think, and on these images the processing does more harm than good.  Perhaps the effect could work on some sort of image, but they clearly detract here.  That's all that ever needs to be said about processing, is the image better or worse because of it, or perhaps just merely different.  I think most everybody would view these particular images and say they look worse for the edit.  

And as to your point about your technique looking better in a different context, well, that's the whole thing.  The biggest part of editing is knowing what is appropriate for the image.  There are all kinds of actions that look fantastic on one image and awful on a another.  99% of editing is knowing when to apply what effect.  So, saying 'they look better on other types of photos' isn't saying much at all.  There's some image that is improved by pretty much any editing technique.  Finding the right mix for a particular image is where all the skill lies.  I've literally created thousands of different editing styles, because I *have* to.  If you truly want to edit, you have to understand nearly all the parameters of the program you're using, how they work, and be able to visualize what you want, and what tools to get it there.  Dumb 'actions' applied crudely are a recipe for editing in poor taste.

edit: in fairness, the landscape edit is pretty good.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 17, 2012)

You want feedback from the first set. #1 isn't too bad but on the other two you killed their skin tone and made them look like total crap.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 17, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> The original images are much better than their altered counterparts.



I agree.  The edited versions don't look nearly as natural as the originals, and for portraits that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Edit ... I didn't realize that there were  bunch of posts after the one I quoted.  I also didn't realize the OP was going to get annoyed when people responded to his asking what we though.

So, I'll tell you what I think: I think the effect you have created makes them look like they have been on drugs for a couple of years.  The look aged and wrinkled and strung out.  A portrait is supposed to be flattering and those are not.  The landscape looks much better, but even it has very heavy haloing around the trees.  Sorry, but it does nothing at all for me, and I can't tell you how to fix it other than reduce the amount of processing a LOT.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 17, 2012)

Tone mapping and faces are an awful combination.  Even if someone had absolutely perfect skin you shouldn't want to tone map it...you just don't want to see all the disgusting detail in someone's face.  The little girl looks like the daughter of skeletor.  My helpful advice is just not to do tone mapping and faces...just no.  Maybe clowns, that's it.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Nov 17, 2012)

PlanetStarbucks said:


> Tone mapping and faces are an awful combination.  Even if someone had absolutely perfect skin you shouldn't want to tone map it...you just don't want to see all the disgusting detail in someone's face.  The little girl looks like the daughter of skeletor.  My helpful advice is just not to do tone mapping and faces...just no.  Maybe clowns, that's it.



Unless your are photographing a gritty hockey player. :er:


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 17, 2012)

This looks a bit more like the 'Dragan' effect than HDR/tonemapping to me.  I rather like the 2nd set, but IMO, it doesn't work as well for the 'clean' portraits of the first set.  I think this kind of look can work well for something more like street photography or rougher more aged faces.  For example: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/7948817746_12ede4ca8a_b.jpg


----------



## SUNR15E (Nov 18, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> it doesn't matter if you got express permission to use them, it's still against forum rules to post any pictures that you yourself didn't take, or are an edit of a photo posted by another member, posted in the same thread as the original shots that the original owner posted them in.





			
				the RULES said:
			
		

> * You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have  exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you  are able to present to TPF Staff.    Under no circumstances will any  instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.



I understand PERMISSION....But I do not understand the comment about - "an edit of a photo posted by another member, posted in the same thread  as the original shots that the original owner posted them in."

If I ask people to EDIT my work to explain something I am sure they are allowed to re-post their version of my work..??
I have read and re-read the rules and I am not sure which bit you are reading to get the impression people cannot edit and re-post.
My signature gives people permission to show their interpretation of my work, I would hope they can then post that impression in my thread so I can see it...?? Otherwise I would have to hunt around to find their reply to my work.

SUNR15E


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 18, 2012)

SUNR15E said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't matter if you got express permission to use them, it's still against forum rules to post any pictures that you yourself didn't take, or are an edit of a photo posted by another member, posted in the same thread as the original shots that the original owner posted them in.
> ...



Perhaps I was being unclear.  I was saying YOU ARE allowed to edit other people's photos, and then re-post them in the same thread, provided the member gives permission (either direct permission or the 'my photos are ok to edit' designation).  It's the only exception I know of for the "no posting images that aren't yours" rule.


----------



## SUNR15E (Nov 18, 2012)

Right cool that makes more sense... 

I will shut up now...

But yes I agree we should only input our own works as the original or to show something other than to help someone with their work.

We can all take Other peoples work and edit and call it our own...but where is the skill in that....lol

I understand what the guy was trying to show...and why...but I think a greater understanding of what this forum is about is needed before he posts things like that. We all have to learn but learning and practicing should be done on our own work or work we are helping others with when they ask us to or give permission.

I'm not sure if crumble truly understand what the problem with his images usage is....and I am sure there are others out there that do not see it as a problem...copyright is a complicated issue in many peoples eyes....ownership of an image or intellectual work has been the subject of many arguments. But I think we all know where the line is and should know when work is not ours to mess about with.


SUNR15E


----------

