# Old Chili Truck



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

I took this photo a while back and decided to re-process it. I did some color grading to this image and I really like the way it turned out. What say you?




Chile truck by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 8, 2012)

I quite like but I don't think you need so much of that editing, do you have the original pic?


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

yes here is the original post

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/276002-chili-pumpkin-stand.html


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Jul 8, 2012)

I like the original better. But it depends on the story you're trying to tell. This one is better for a more dramatic story


----------



## ann (Jul 8, 2012)

I like the other better as well. With this one, the "orange " color bleeds everywhere.

Am always amazed how certain colors tend to change with such intensity with HDR, my thought is the combination of all those exposures, then the tonemapping. Tans seem to fall into that category.


----------



## EDL (Jul 8, 2012)

:thumbup: for the original one too


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.



I think, technically speaking, pretty much everything posted has been digitally altered in some way. Maybe what we need is a tone mapping sub section with the HDR area. If this image was tone mapped of course.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Ok, then should every digitally altered image be called HDR? I definately think not. There are certain parameters and when you cross them then its not an HDR but something else. Not that that is a bad thing. But I just dont like lumping everything good bad and ugly in the pot and calling it HDR.


----------



## ann (Jul 8, 2012)

personally, when i alter an image past a certain point i call it digital art, not a photograph. When they are hung and sold it is always with the description of being digital art.

that point may vary from person to person , but there is a point when it should be obvious to the educated photographer.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 8, 2012)

ann said:


> personally, when i alter an image past a certain point i call it digital art, not a photograph. When they are hung and sold it is always with the description of being digital art.
> 
> that point may vary from person to person , but there is a point when it should be obvious to the educated photographer.




THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!

I JUST had this SAME conversation with someone on here about this EXACT same thing. I'm glad to hear that other people think they exact same thing I do. I think editing is alright to an extent. There is a LINE where it's basically a digital painting, and calling it photography is really a disgrace to the trade.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.



Bynx I already have posted this the way it should look. I have been working on color grading a method which is used in video or motion work and applying it some of my past photos I have since I really have not had the time to get out and shoot. 

Its a fun way to alter an image and make it become something else worth looking at. You may disagree but to say it gives HDR a bad name umm, I highly disagree with that statement. Most folks work on this forum is altered beyond a realistic looking photo including yours and if you are going for something the way it should look then a regular photo will do that just fine. If HDR is truly used for its original intentions than most here have missed that point.

You can call this digitally altered which does not bother me one bit and I agree it is very digitally altered. Rather than staying in the safe box I like to explore outside it and try to bring in other areas
of interest I have into my processing. Color grading just happens to be something I wanted to try out and honestly I really like despite the majority post that don't. I was working on a project I was presented
with and I had to take some footage and color correct it and color grade it for a short video. I thought wow it would be cool to apply this to photography.

It may not be for everyones enjoyment and I completely understand that with no hard feelings. I enjoy taking photos and pushing them as much as I can to the point where its no longer a photo but 
an expression. I look at this photo and think hhmm I wonder what world you would have to live in for this to be what reality looks like. Its almost like a dream.

Cheers


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Hey Vip, cudos for what you are doing. I do the same thing all the time. I just dont post it in the HDR forum. If there isnt another forum for files that have been monkeyed with then there should be. As I said all things that have been altered shouldnt be lumped together with HDR imaging. I guess its like a purist photographer who doesnt like the use of Photoshop at all. Id like to see HDR images as they were intended.....really nice looking, better than, the single shot taken by the purist. We have to put up with the newbies that dont know any better and we try to show them the way to achieve those results. But where do we draw the line at what we accept in the HDR FORUM? The overcooked look is bad enough and hopefully just a fad. There is a painterly look which I really like. But none of it has anything to do with HDR except that to get to the stage where we can actually see an HDR image we have to tone map it. And there is the problem. Too many Stevie Wonders out there tone mapping images that look dog awful. I had to step in here since you are one of the more numerous posters in the forum and I wouldnt like to see more of this kind of stuff which has nothing to do with HDR imaging. Now this is just my opinion. Im sure there are some who will disagree. By the way, in that other forum for files that have been monkeyed with, Id say I like your chilli truck and it would probably make a pretty good OOB.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Hey Vip, cudos for what you are doing. I do the same thing all the time. I just dont post it in the HDR forum. If there isnt another forum for files that have been monkeyed with then there should be. As I said all things that have been altered shouldnt be lumped together with HDR imaging. I guess its like a purist photographer who doesnt like the use of Photoshop at all. Id like to see HDR images as they were intended.....really nice looking, better than, the single shot taken by the purist. We have to put up with the newbies that dont know any better and we try to show them the way to achieve those results. But where do we draw the line at what we accept in the HDR FORUM? The overcooked look is bad enough and hopefully just a fad. There is a painterly look which I really like. But none of it has anything to do with HDR except that to get to the stage where we can actually see an HDR image we have to tone map it. And there is the problem. Too many Stevie Wonders out there tone mapping images that look dog awful. I had to step in here since you are one of the more numerous posters in the forum and I wouldnt like to see more of this kind of stuff which has nothing to do with HDR imaging. *Now this is just my opinion.* Im sure there are some who will disagree. By the way, in that other forum for files that have been monkeyed with, Id say I like your chilli truck and it would probably make a pretty good OOB.



And I think it's a safe bet that the opinions of others is that this forum will suffice nicely.

I don't get the impression that "all things altered" are lumped together here. In fact, I'd be willing to be that you're in a profound minority there. Complaining that allowing it "gives HDR a bad name" is just silly. It's really silly.

Personally, I'll continue to post my tone mapped images here until such a time as a moderator directs me not to, or a forum, specifically for tone-mapped images, is set up...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> But I just dont like lumping everything good bad and ugly in the pot and calling it HDR.



Hey, here's a clever idea: If _you _don't like it, don't do it...


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Steve, until you learn to do a decent HDR your opinion means squat to me. All you do is pump more bad tone mapped images here looking for praise. As for denying that the images Im talking about give HDR a bad name, you're nuts if you believe that. So many people see images like this and think thats the result of people knowing what they are doing and call it crap. Its really pretty simple, this is the forum for HDR images. If they arent HDR images they should be someplace else. Is that too hard to understand?
And there is a thread for these non HDR images.....its called Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery. Its located directly above the HDR Discussions thread.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

*Bynx* -If they ever create that section thats, probably where I would spend my time. :thumbup:

Lets be real though for a second. How many folks really post HDR images on what they were intended for? Unless you are using photoshop to layer mask in all the details of each exposure without the use of tonemapping and software then everyone here is failed. 

I may sound rude and I honestly am not trying to be rude but, you are not the final say on what should be posted here or not. If you take more than one exposure slap it into photomatix or any other software and post process then the only place to post it is in this section. 

We have a hard enough time with being accepted by all the other groups of people on this forum that trying to direct or steer folks away from here who want to learn and try other methods than what you like, well, thats  not a positive message to send. There is a starting place for everyone and think back to when you started. Were your skills as good as they are now? I would think not so keep in mind that the skill set of each individual 
will evolve over time and we should be encouraging rather than discouraging.

You like painterly yes? Great, is that the only way to process HDR? Its not a photorealistic image that HDR is intended for but you still post in this section. Why because it is a method of using HDR which fits in with this section. Based off your comment your photos are  monkeyed around with as well just not as much as this image is. 

Please don't be some type of purist here because I really don't think it's flattering. You don't have to comment, you don't have to look nobody is twisting our arm. There are many people trying out HDR and joining, there are going to be good and bad processed images. You won't be able to tell just by the title if the image is to your liking or standards until you check it out. At that point if you like it than comment if you have words
of wisdom to help then post. If you think its not worth your breath than simply hit the back button and your are out. It's very simple.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2012)

well, I have a question now...I have been wanting to give HDR a shot, just because it looked kinda cool and figured it couldn't hurt to try.  If i set  my D90 to bracket, and take three pictures 
at different exposures, and plug those three pictures into photomatix, is THAT an HDR picture? (i got photomatix because i saw it on someones post as HDR software) or is there something
else I need to do that makes it HDR?  I really want to give it a try, but if I cant do it right, I would rather not do it at all.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

HDR is high dynamic range. When you do HDR the goal is capture the full or most range in the scene. You want details in darks and and details in highlights and midtones. To make an hdr image you need different sets of exposures that cover this range. At this point then you can use photoshop, photomatix, hdr pro and so on to merge the files together. Programs like photomatix have tonemapping filters that help to bring out more detail in all these areas. This is where you start. The new photomatix software offers at the end the capability to correct contrast, color and sharpness. IF you don't do this then photoshop is where most finish up there photos. 

When you get an image like I have posted there is way more processing and masking that goes on that makes the image look like it does. 

As far as doing it right or wrong is all RELATIVE!


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

Vip that section IS created. See my last post. And its not a matter of how good some is, its a matter of purposely making something look so bad, if its supposed to be an HDR image.

To answer you pixmedic, HDR is very simple. Taking 3 shots, (if the difference between the brightests and darkest in the scene can be covered with 3 shots) and putting those shots through Photomatix will result in a somewhat flat image if done properly. The latest version offers a sharpness, contrast and color tweek, otherwise use Photoshop to give some Exposure correction, and Gamma Correction and maybe noise reduction if needed. Instead of rewriting the whole thing about HDR read the good sticky at the top of the HDR forum. It explains what it is and how to achieve it. But its really simple.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

An HDR is the tonal range of two or more images which is tone mapped in Photomatix or any other software or plugin designed expressly for that purpose with some minor tweaking to enhance clarity, sharpness for a more life like image. Actually layering in Photoshop creates the same thing but is more difficult for many and not an option for a lot. Any single image whether its a Raw file or a single jpeg that has been tone mapped is not an HDR. Any image that is further enhanced with the likes of Topaz Adjust etc does not create an HDR. While the looks of the finals can look really good to some, and not so much to others, the place to upload them is to the Graphics Programs Photo Gallery. Why is there a problem with that? I assure you if you did that you wouldnt be hearing from me. Meanwhile if you come up with an actual HDR image then post it here and knock my socks off.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2012)

Any attempt at HDR from me will be done with several images run through photomatix pro 4.0.2.
not sure if that is the version that lets me fix up contrast and such at the end, but I guess Ill find out. 
I did see in the photomatix program that it has a button to just import one picture and tonemap it. doesnt seem like it would be the same thing though. 
Im going to try the 3 pic at different exposures option and see what I can do with it. I also have photoshop mastersuite CS5, and a slightly older version of lightroom,  but i am not really very adept with them.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi (Jul 8, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> Lets be real though for a second. How many folks really post HDR images on what they were intended for?



Me


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

If you download the latest version of Photomatix your serial number will work with it. There is a wider selection of presets to choose from in the newer version but I think it will be a bad thing for many since they have problems choosing the right one with the version with fewer to choose from. If you bracket 3 shots with the middle shot being your best single shot for the scene and run it through Photomatix choose Default to start with process and in Photoshop go to Exposure and give it as much as it needs so the highlights dont get blown out. Then use Gamma Correction to around 75 or 80 to punch up the blacks. Then run it through Unsharp Mask. If your image is Hi res then the numbers are 220, 2.5 and 0. Check the preview, run it and download it here and show these guys what a newbie can do. If you shoot a scene with a dynamic range like your living room where the sky shines through the window, the table lamp is on and there is a shadow under the coffee table then 3 shots wont be enough but it will be a place to start.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Vip that section IS created. See my last post. And its not a matter of how good some is, its a matter of purposely making something look so bad, if its supposed to be an HDR image.




Are you going to start posting your painterly images in there? Lead by example rightlayball:


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Steve, until you learn to do a decent HDR your opinion means squat to me. All you do is pump more bad tone mapped images here looking for praise. As for denying that the images Im talking about give HDR a bad name, you're nuts if you believe that. So many people see images like this and think thats the result of people knowing what they are doing and call it crap. Its really pretty simple, this is the forum for HDR images. If they arent HDR images they should be someplace else. Is that too hard to understand?
> And there is a thread for these non HDR images.....its called Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery. Its located directly above the HDR Discussions thread.



Wow, I don't know that I've ever encountered someone more in need of having their panties unknotted.

I don't look for "praise" with my photos, primarily because, unless I specifically ask for comments, I don't particularly give a rat's ass what anyone thinks of them. In particular, I will never allow myself to be burdened by being concerned what _your _opinion is.

Second, who are you to determine what should and shouldn't be posted here? You act as though you're some all-knowing HDR God. Well, you've posted some nice stuff. You've posted some real garbage, too. We all have our off days.

You seem to have some real issues. God forbid someone attack your beloved HDR. Holy Christ, THE HUMANITY!!

Get over yourself, Bynx, you're not that good...


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> If something is worth taking the time to photograph, then why not show it to us the way it looks and not the way it shouldnt look. A shot like the truck here doesnt belong in the HDR section but in a section that should be named Digitally Altered Images. It really gives HDR a bad name.



Really? Really? Seriously?

*facepalms so hard it creates a black hole*


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 8, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Why is there a problem with that?



Quite honestly, the only person here with a problem, and the only person who's failed to realize he _has _a problem, is you...



> I assure you if you did that you wouldnt be hearing from me.



And who are y_ou?_ Who are _you _that someone should be concerned about "hearing" from _you_?

You really have an amazingly huge ego.

And, from the comments I'm seeing here, that ego is unfounded...


----------



## Bynx (Jul 8, 2012)

I really like HDR and this is the HDR forum. If you have something else and there is a place for it somewhere else then why not file it there? Are you too obtuse to understand that? You dump your stuff here when it should be there and then get your nickers in a knot when I finally say enough is enough. Is there some reason you dont like posting where it belongs? Lets see more HDR and less crap.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 8, 2012)

*Bynx-* I know you are like HDR and you have done some good stuff in the past. There are a lot of things you can contribute to the forum. With that said just leave it at that why are you trying to be the GODFATHER here.
Either you are very very very old and invented HDR or your just like us who enjoy using HDR as much as possible. The problem I see here is you bash people if you don't like there images. You are very blunt and that is good and bad depending on who the other side is. Some people learn like that and some don't. There have been times where people have critiqued your photos and rather than keep your ears open you have got defensive which we all do time to time. I bring this up because there have been images you have posted here that would be better suited for that section you mentioned but you still decided to post here and I think the reason is that you felt it belonged.

I think most folks will come in here first to see and post HDR rather than that other section. I honestly never considered posting there in the short time I have been apart of this forum and I will accept that as an error on my end. I will review that section more and see if I will benefit by posting here or there and If I decide to post here than your going to have to just deal with it. 

I really don't think you need to employ yourself as the TPF HDR forum gate keeper though. 

You must have had a bad day or something I am not sure but we should all be able to get along. Keep in mind we are the good guys here not the bad ones. We love HDR just like you. Its great to have more than one style of processing, it keeps it interesting. If everyone posted images that looked just like yours or just like mine this forum would be very boring.

I say keep em coming and lets all learn from one another in a positive way!


----------



## rexbobcat (Jul 8, 2012)

Some of those photos are HDR, however, but you don't seem to deem them so, because they don't meet your artistic standards. Frankly, I think you need to mind your own business, as you said in the PM you sent me.

Who the heck blasts someone with insults over PMs? What effect did you think that would have, honestly? XD

P.S. A facepalm is not a ***** slap. Google is your friend.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 8, 2012)

JoshuaSimPhotography said:


> I quite like but I don't think you need so much of that editing, do you have the original pic?



Who ever NEEDS to do half the editing we do?  We do it because we're creating something... not because we NEED to  

::skims rest of thread::

WHAT in the F**K?  Good lord.

HEY OP!

I dig it.  Just sayin'.  Not that *my* or anyone else's, apparently, opinion matters.  But I dig it.  Better than the original.

&#8203;I hope you were able to find your head again after it was ripped off... :roll:


----------



## KongKurs (Jul 9, 2012)

I think this HDR section really needs a topic dedicated to a therapeutic talk between posters, to get the air cleaned a bit.. 
Or maybe the HDR Discussion should be renamed HDR/Tonemapping discussion, leaving the "graphics program" section a place to talk about software setup and so forth.

Back OT: I really like the shot, and the original as well, it's inspiring to see how different the two look.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2012)

Bynx said:


> I really like HDR and this is the HDR forum. If you have something else and there is a place for it somewhere else then why not file it there? Are you too obtuse to understand that? You dump your stuff here when it should be there and then get your nickers in a knot when I finally say enough is enough. Is there some reason you dont like posting where it belongs? *Lets see more HDR and less crap.*



That, right there, is why I'm glad you're getting upset.

You've not learned the art of _constructive _criticism. You'll blast away at someone's image, but very rarely offer anything with regards to how the person might correct what you find to be wrong with the image. You just say "Ugh, you got halos" or "Ugh, the grass is too green" or "Ugh, you don't know how to do HDR, so your opinion sucks". You focus on the negative, and rarely, if ever, offer _anything _postiive. A for instance: you replaced the sky in a shot I took of the USS Recruit. What would've been far more appropriate would've been to actually correct the sky that was there or, at the very least, suggested how it _could _be corrected. _Replacing _it with the sky from a picture _you _have was stupid, because I don't have a picture that I can pull that sky from.

It's obvious that you have some need to be "better". That's fine but, the way _you _go about it givesit a name: Narcissism. That's a personality disorder. You feel the need to be more important than others; more valuable, and you attempt to accomplish that by being critical of them and tearing them down. Yet, when you post something, you basically say "See how great I am?"

If you don't like tone-maps posted here, petition for a "Tone Map" sub-forum. Because, from what I can tell, no one here is going to post elsewhere because _you _want them to...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 9, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Who the heck blasts someone with insults over PMs? What effect did you think that would have, honestly?



Did he really??

Wow. That's really disturbing...


----------



## Bynx (Jul 9, 2012)

Steve I treat people like I get treated. I help people out all the time spending lots of time helping them out with free books, software and info on what they are looking for. In your case the first time we met you pissed me off. So why should i help you? But I did. I tried working on your sky and it was a lost cause so the alternative was to drop a new sky in. I didnt have to explain it because it was just a pic off google that seemed appropriate. But I tried to show that it wasnt a totally useless image. Everything but the sky was fine. I said many many times on this site how to cure halos. *<Moderated>. *But if you search you will find the answer. As for being narcisissic, actually Im a Liberal, but I did vote NDP once. Whats wrong with seeing HDR images in the HDR forum? If you have played with different software and doing all sorts of experimental stuff thats great. But post it where it belongs and not here. Why is that too much to ask?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 9, 2012)

*Enough!  Everyone go outside and take a picture.  *


----------

