# Little Church in Gravenhurst



## Bynx (Jul 10, 2010)

Came upon this little church surrounded by trees. 7 shot HDR.


----------



## Tom Shandruk (Jul 10, 2010)

To be honest I don't think the HDR does anything to complement the shot.

The colours of the foliage really distracted me from the church itself.  Also, I just don't like HDR, so take my comments as you will  

Post-processing aside, the *shot* is a wonderful shot, it conveys strong balance with the flanking trees.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jul 10, 2010)

HDR has its place...I'm not sure this is it.  The shot is nice, as mentioned.  I just don't care much for the background trees at all and would rather have more of the church in frame...personal preference perhaps.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 10, 2010)

It looks washed out


----------



## Bynx (Jul 10, 2010)

Ok here is a bit of brightness and contrast added as well as the original middle shot. You can clearly see the dark shadows of the trees has much more detail, without the shadow over the door filling in. As well there is much more rich detail in the stonework. I dont know what to say to anyone who doesnt like HDR but comes in making comments. Some people just dont like progress.


----------



## Tom Shandruk (Jul 10, 2010)

I am in no way opposed to progress, I just have a personal distaste for HDR.  Your edit, however, improves on the washed-out feeling mentioned.  Good job, good shot, etc.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 10, 2010)

Why do you distaste HDR and why are you posting on the HDR board. This photo really has no HDR look so its just a photo. Not sure why you keep mentioning it. If you are going to say that in every photo then don't post in the HDR section


----------



## Bynx (Jul 10, 2010)

myshkin said:


> Why do you distates HDR and why are you posting on the HDR board. This photo really has no HDR look so its just a photo. Not sure why you keep mentioning it. If you are going to say that in every photo then don't post in the HDR section



What does distates mean. Could you clarify in english please what you are saying here? I think maybe a language barrier has you confused.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 10, 2010)

Typo sad your brain couldn't figure that out


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jul 10, 2010)

Bynx said:


> myshkin said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you distates HDR and why are you posting on the HDR board. This photo really has no HDR look so its just a photo. Not sure why you keep mentioning it. If you are going to say that in every photo then don't post in the HDR section
> ...


 
It's quite clear what he/she is saying. No need to be a jerk about someone not speaking/typing perfect English.

The version with the contrast added helps the brickwork's appearance considerably.


----------



## Tom Shandruk (Jul 10, 2010)

I replied to a thread that I saw in the active threads area of the website, unaware that it was in the HDR section.  Regardless, I am unaware of a rule stating that I'm not allowed to have a negative opinion on an HDR picture in the HDR section.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 10, 2010)

I would like to know why you distaste HDR. I wasn't trying to be rude but I find a lot of haters of HDR post more in HDR sections then HDR people.

I find it odd to hate High dynamic Range since this is what camera companies strive to achieve in their sensors. Such a odd thing to hate

I would understand the statement better if you said you hate what people do with HDR


----------



## Tom Shandruk (Jul 10, 2010)

Ah, I mistook you for being rude.  My apologies.

I dislike HDR because, although a neat effect, people overuse it, ruin perfectly good shots with it, and generally don't understand how to implement it to make a shot better.  I also don't like the colours on most HDR shots as I see them to be unrealistic to the moment.  

So yes, I suppose saying I dislike what people DO with HDR would be more to the point I was trying to make.  Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 10, 2010)

Tom Shandruk said:


> Ah, I mistook you for being rude. My apologies.
> 
> I dislike HDR because, although a neat effect, people overuse it, ruin perfectly good shots with it, and generally don't understand how to implement it to make a shot better. I also don't like the colours on most HDR shots as I see them to be unrealistic to the moment.
> 
> So yes, I suppose saying I dislike what people DO with HDR would be more to the point I was trying to make. Thanks for clearing that up


 

That is strictly your opinion. 
People who choose to use any editing program to their own liking is absolutely acceptable. If you don't like their creativity, well don't comment about it. 
I have seen some HDR images that are very different, and I like some and do not like others...but it is always the creator's choice how he/she finishes the image.


Bynx
I like the second edit much better, it also reduced the halos where the trees met the sky.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2010)

The second one looks better to me, but they both seem a little washed out.  Whatever processing you did seems to have taken away a lot of contrast.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 10, 2010)

~Stella~ said:


> It's quite clear what he/she is saying. No need to be a jerk about someone not speaking/typing perfect English.
> 
> The version with the contrast added helps the brickwork's appearance considerably.



It certainly is NOT clear Stella what myshkin is saying. So Im not trying to be a jerk. He says I dont like HDR. Where the hell did I ever say that? HDR forum is the only thread I visit on this site. And it kinda pisses me off when people who dont like HDR come in here and make their comments about how they dont like it. HDR might not be for everyone, but its not going away and in my opinion is the best thing to happen to photography since they invented color film. So who is being the jerk?

Ive read all the comments 3 times now. It seems myshkin was referring to someone else but looking at me when he made his comment about not likeing HDR and to stop posting in HDR  thread.
I did another HDR of the building as more of the subject.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jul 10, 2010)

myshkin was speaking to Tom in inquiring why* Tom* dislikes HDR, not you.  And thus, why *Tom* is bothering to post in this section in reply to you.  Obviously you like the technique or you wouldn't be using it, right?

FTR, I'm not a huge fan of the average HDR, but then I see one that is fabulous and well worth poking my head in here for.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 10, 2010)

I like the newest version the most so far, but it still seems to lack ... I don't know, punch I guess.  Don't really know how to describe it.  It just looks kinda flat.


----------



## ~Stella~ (Jul 10, 2010)

I agree. Smidge less bright + more contrast? Dunno.

And if you could catch it without the harsh shadows in the morning or overcast, I think it would be brilliant in a higher contrast B&W showing the stonework.

ETA - I do like the flowers - they add a little punch of color.  I might be tempted to add a few more in if I was being sneaky.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 10, 2010)

Its a couple hour drive to Gravenhurst but Im going back for another boat tour. If Id gone back about an hour later the shadow in front would have been gone. But we take what we can get with the time we have. Both these pics have the pop as you say on my originals here. I dont know why but they are losing that punch when they get sent to the site.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 11, 2010)

Bynx - Not sure how you thought I was asking you that. I feel confident anyone who would read this thread would know I was talking to the other guy. In no way was my initial post aimed at you. Not sure how it could have been more clear, since I quoted the guys use of distaste(as you so kindly pointed out my typo)


----------



## Bynx (Jul 11, 2010)

So sorry for the confusion myshkin. It was my misunderstanding. You were talking about the photo not looking HDR then said about not liking HDR and I thought you were referring to me. Now that we have that cleared up I also learned that the file size is what is causing all the trouble. I posted the pic too large in size so the site resizes it and that causes visual problems. Here is a smaller file size version of the original.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 11, 2010)

Yeah Bynx, I usually love your HDRs.  Maybe if the church has more depth or something (turrets in the background or something) it would work.  But only having trees in the back does not really WOW this HDR.  Couldnt you HDR the inside also?  shoot it closer?


----------



## Bynx (Jul 11, 2010)

The church was completely surrounded by the trees and the only part of the building you can see is what is showing here. You can walk through the trees in places to see parts of a window but not much else. It was Saturday morning and the place was locked up.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 11, 2010)

Bynx said:


> Some people just dont like progress.



Progress? HDR dates back to the 1930s. 

That said, your last try (post #22) is the best so far imo. But it is still lacking some contrast I think.

And I much prefer the crop of post #16


----------



## manaheim (Jul 11, 2010)

I agree with clouds assessment.  Overal though, I think the composition Is just somewhat dull resulting in people focusing in on the treatment which was reasonably delicate (if ineffective) but definitely kinda washed out.  Newer edits are nicer.

You guys might want to keep in mind were all allowed to post in here whether we like your images or not.

I have no problem with hdr but it's a tool with subjective use conditions.  If people don't happen to like what you did they are just as welcome ro say so as some who says otherwise.

If you guys really want to be surrounded by yesmen maybe you should go create a private forum with specific membership requirements.  This forum is public... Just an idea.  You're, of course, welcome to keep posting and being annoyed at critics.


----------



## myshkin (Jul 11, 2010)

noone is looking for yes man. Atleast not me. I think its a legitimate question to ask someone who is new to the forum and within the same thread said he hated HDR twice. This is a HDR board, and HDR gets a lot of trolls(he was not a troll). I in no way was trying to enforce anything. Its the samething I see all the time in sports boards. You get tons of people who come on hockey boards just to say the sport sucks. These people obviously have no lives and I think the question of why they are on a hockey board is a legitimate question


----------



## Bynx (Jul 11, 2010)

Post #16 wasnt a crop but a separate full frame shot. And #16 was resized properly so there was no additional resizing by a second party like host site or this site.
The washed out look has now been explained. The lesson is, when all else fails, pay attention to the rules. In this case regarding file size either in kbs or pixel dimensions. Nobody is looking for yes men. I for one dont learn a thing from them. I also dont learn a thing or want to from people who criticise HDR then follow that with I dont like any HDR.
Finally, Im really sorry you all feel the place is dull. It was truly a neat looking building the way it was nestled in those trees. I couldnt see inside, but could tell the windows were colored glass, but no pictures as such. It still would have looked interesting. Next time I go back I will aim for a Sunday and hope there is somebody home.


----------



## Provo (Jul 11, 2010)

Bynx post #22 looks the best out of any of the ones displayed.
The initial post did look washed out as others have commented.
I know the foliage can't be moved from the building but it takes away from the building too many greens in the shot.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 11, 2010)

Provo said:


> Bynx post #22 looks the best out of any of the ones displayed.
> The initial post did look washed out as others have commented.
> I know the foliage can't be moved from the building but it takes away from the building too many greens in the shot.



When you go to northern Ontario there is nothing but trees and that means lots of foliage. Its kind of funny. Next time you post an ocean scene I think I might mention there is too much water. On a serious note, Im glad there is all this chatter about the flatness of the first shot. It helped me find out why the problems with some of my posts not looking like my originals.


----------



## Provo (Jul 11, 2010)

Bynx said:


> Provo said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx post #22 looks the best out of any of the ones displayed.
> ...


 
Listen you can go that route if you so choose to I simply voiced my opinion for crying out loud its a forum, my shots arent perfect by all means if you feel you want to act upon revenge or something and make a comment in one of my images nobody is stopping you and certainly not me, remember we all post an image here out to the public for the world to see and judge nothing should be taken personal. But hey as I mentioned do as you please if thats what suits you.


----------



## ann (Jul 11, 2010)

i think the water reference was a bit of a joke.

lighten up fellows.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 11, 2010)

ann said:


> i think the water reference was a bit of a joke.
> 
> lighten up fellows.



Absolutely right ann. We have talked just now and everything is cool.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 11, 2010)

Actualy, Bynx, I suspect the place itself is very cool... you may just not have captured it.

I have a very similar place near me and it's one of those little church buldings just like this one is... but for some reason I'm never quite able to capture the coolness of it.  I struggle with it in the same way I struggle with cemeteries... which is interesting since they are usually both in similar places, and often in the VERY same place.

Keep trying.  I'll be curious to see if you nail it.  Would love to learn from you if you do.


----------



## wesd (Jul 12, 2010)

Tom Shandruk said:


> I am in no way opposed to progress, I just have a personal distaste for HDR.  Your edit, however, improves on the washed-out feeling mentioned.  Good job, good shot, etc.


Don't get me wrong the HDR didn't do this show well in face it doesn't even look like HDR. but it does have its uses epically in some night scenes.  I didn't even notice the flowers until you mentioned them.
Wes


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 12, 2010)

wesd said:


> Tom Shandruk said:
> 
> 
> > I am in no way opposed to progress



Good deal since there is no sign of progress here. Except for those who don't know much about photo history. HDR was invented in the 1930s. Look it up!


----------



## Bynx (Jul 12, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> wesd said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Shandruk said:
> ...



Youre  repeating yourself and your're probably right, but so what! HDR as we know it, and as it is being referenced available to the unwashed masses didnt come along until recently. Now if your intention is to just start more arguments I suggest you just move on.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 12, 2010)

Bynx said:


> You're  repeating yourself and your're probably right, but so what! HDR as we know it, and as it is being referenced available to the unwashed masses didnt come along until recently. Now if your intention is to just start more arguments I suggest you just move on.



:lmao:


Go wash.

I realize that knowing the slightest bit of history is extremely annoying because it means you haven't invented anything but it is still reality. Deal with it.

There hasn't been anything new in photography in a long time. That includes you.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 12, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > You're  repeating yourself and your're probably right, but so what! HDR as we know it, and as it is being referenced available to the unwashed masses didnt come along until recently. Now if your intention is to just start more arguments I suggest you just move on.
> ...



And your purpose for letting me know this? If it makes you feel better, let go and get it out of your system. Rant on.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jul 13, 2010)

hdr forum is funny.
thanks guys.:thumbup:


----------



## Bynx (Jul 13, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> hdr forum is funny.
> thanks guys.:thumbup:



Ya even in the smallest of places there are idiots lurking.


----------

