# Nissan GTR



## jdsfighter

I was out on a shoot yesterday, and saw a sweet car on my way back home. I had to get a few shots.

I've never photographed a car before, but here's the results

#1 (I don't care for this one as much)






#2 (Better, but cluttered background)


----------



## Bynx

Again these arent HDR images. Instead of trying to be different why not just try a simple HDR image? Once you have that down then you can wander off the path to find your own way. Meanwhile, these are just not very good. As for composition, I like the angle you have shot these at. But the background could be better. Trees sticking up, is as bad as having someone having a telephone pole sticking up from top of someones head you are taking a picture of.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Hey, Nice captures.  I saw one of these a couple of weeks back and got shots of it too.  It's a really cool looking car.

2010 Nissan Skyline GTR | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Sometimes you can't control the backgrounds so I don't sweat that as much anymore.  It used to upset me but it is what it is.  The second one is the best one to me.  It seems a little dark and contrasty.  I would dial that back a bit.

Danny


----------



## jdsfighter

They consist of 3 exposures, but I guess I just like massively overcooking things.


----------



## Bynx

jdsfighter said:


> They consist of 3 exposures, but I guess I just like massively overcooking things.



Thats ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images is a waste of time considering where you end up and are not HDR any longer. Im sure you could get the same bad results from using just one image.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

Bynx said:


> Thats ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images is a waste of time considering where you end up and are not HDR any longer. Im sure you could get the same bad results from using just one image.



Hey Bynx,

Since I block all of your posts, I opted to view this post just to see your response and of course you didn't disappoint (or you did, depending on the reader's POV).

 If you were to word it like this:

That's ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images wasn't very useful since the result was no longer HDR.  I'm sure you could have gotten the same undesirable (to me anyway) result from using just one image.  It's definitely a starting point but keep at it and you'll get better each time.  

Isn't that better?  You have to agree that's better and not as harsh.  In case you're wondering "What was so bad about my response???", the buzz phrases that made you sound like a _____ were "waste of time" and "same bad results".  Don't respond.  I won't look.  I swear, but I just wanted to throw that out there to see if it opens your eyes a bit.



Danny


----------



## jdsfighter

dandaluzphotography said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images is a waste of time considering where you end up and are not HDR any longer. Im sure you could get the same bad results from using just one image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Bynx,
> 
> Since I block all of your posts, I opted to view this post just to see your response and of course you didn't disappoint (or you did, depending on the reader's POV).
> 
> If you were to word it like this:
> 
> That's ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images wasn't very useful since the result was no longer HDR.  I'm sure you could have gotten the same undesirable (to me anyway) result from using just one image.  It's definitely a starting point but keep at it and you'll get better each time.
> 
> Isn't that better?  You have to agree that's better and not as harsh.  In case you're wondering "What was so bad about my response???", the buzz phrases that made you sound like a _____ were "waste of time" and "same bad results".  Don't respond.  I won't look.  I swear, but I just wanted to throw that out there to see if it opens your eyes a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Danny
Click to expand...


This brightened my day.


----------



## pixmedic

harsh criticism aside...
If I ever post an HDR photo, (one day) and Bynx says its good, I will KNOW I did something right. 
some people are just passionate about what they love. take their criticism with a grain of salt, and take their suggestions to heart.


----------



## Bynx

Im sorry if I cant put sweet icing sugar on bad images. But these are definately not even HDR so I wont sugar coat my feelings. I might be a little more sympathetic if they were posted in the Altered Images storage bin, and make my comments about them from that point of view, but they are here in the HDR bin. Im willing to give any help I can, but if this is the look the OP wants, Sometimes the truth hurts, but we are all here to learn. I didnt say anything except the absolute truth. If you start off with 2 or more files for HDR to get details in the highlights and shadows, then process the image so you blow out the highlights and fill in the shadows then doing the HDR WAS a waste of time. And the same look could have been done using a single file and really poor Photoshop skills. I like the depth of field used in both images. And the backgrounds could be easily fixed giving better emphasis to the cars, but the processing is bad. And anything I say is my opinion. If Im wrong then jump in here and prove me wrong, dont just say it.


----------



## charlie76




----------



## charlie76

Well Bynx...I'm a traditional type of guy...HDR isn't my thing.  To me HDR and traditional images are like steroids baseball players and natural players.  They shouldn't be compared.  HDR's are fun to look at..and fun to play with...but that's just about it...IMO 

However, the first image doesn't do anything for me...too fake..cartoon-style.  The second has exposure issues...and I agree with you abot the perspective being pretty good...

anything else?

I got no HDR skills...I just take regular shots man  ...  but I like watching you guys go at it


----------



## charlie76




----------



## Bynx

hahahahaha. Well charlie, at least knowing where you are coming from, I guess it is funny.


----------



## jdsfighter

Now that my cuts have scabbed over, here are some other "awful" process attempts.


----------



## Bynx

Ok, lets start again with a clean slate. Would you like help to create a good HDR image? Im glad you called these some other "awful" process attempts because you're right. I dont remember seeing any of your other 120 posts so dont know if you can do an HDR or not. If you want the look you have here, then they arent HDR and should be posted elsewhere. If you would like help just ask.


----------



## jdsfighter

Bynx said:


> Ok, lets start again with a clean slate. Would you like help to create a good HDR image? Im glad you called these some other "awful" process attempts because you're right. I dont remember seeing any of your other 120 posts so dont know if you can do an HDR or not. If you want the look you have here, then they arent HDR and should be posted elsewhere. If you would like help just ask.



If I were to post the raws, think there's a chance you could give me a decent example?


----------



## Bynx

If you post them, they will come....or something like that. Sure, Id be glad to give it a try. If you use dropbox, just put your files in the public folder and PM me the link.


----------



## jdsfighter

Bynx said:


> If you post them, they will come....or something like that. Sure, Id be glad to give it a try. If you use dropbox, just put your files in the public folder and PM me the link.



I'll send you some of the GTR as well as some from the park.


----------



## Bynx

I will do my best, and explain exactly what I did. The shots look sharp and I like the angles, but the rest not so much. I just hope they have been shot properly for HDR.


----------



## charlie76

:cheers:


----------



## that1guy

I'm sorry normally i keep quiet but .. i don't know exacty what program you used to make these but it looks like photoshop... there aren't any details and the ones i can see are hidden in darkness 

I'm no HDR expert or claim to be just stating my useless opinion, but if it makes you feel any better when i first started my images would look like this... practice practice practice you will start understanding HDR more develop your own style


----------



## Bynx

Okay here is my take on the car. I dont know why you included the landscape shot, but it was nice to work on and I will include it here. Tomorrow we can talk about this and some of the problems with the car pic. The landscape shot had no problems at all. Nine shots will give you a hint why. The car only 3 and with sky, even a not so nice one from this scene's point of view, and the dark shadows and black tires needed probably 5 shots both over and underexposed to catch the highlight reflection on the paint and the shadow under the car so we can have some separation from the tires and dark bumper thingy.


----------



## KongKurs

Nice ones, bynx.

What bynx is trying to tell, is that your initial processed photos are more about tonemapping than HDR. 
HDR photos increase dynamic range massively, making it necessary to tonemap, in order for your monitor to be able to display the entire dynamic range. You "press the histogram back" in a way..

As you can see on bynx' images, the dynamic range is increased, making the grilles, wheels and other structures in the dark areas stand out better. The same goes for the lighter areas.
If you are looking to create artistic tonemapped images like you have posted in here, maybe you don't need to do HDR all the time, just try out Topaz Adjust or something similar instead..?


----------



## o hey tyler

Bynx said:
			
		

> Okay here is my take on the car. I dont know why you included the landscape shot, but it was nice to work on and I will include it here. Tomorrow we can talk about this and some of the problems with the car pic. The landscape shot had no problems at all. Nine shots will give you a hint why. The car only 3 and with sky, even a not so nice one from this scene's point of view, and the dark shadows and black tires needed probably 5 shots both over and underexposed to catch the highlight reflection on the paint and the shadow under the car so we can have some separation from the tires and dark bumper thingy.



In the shot or the GTR, were you going for the "vast array of mid tones" look? It does not look very high dynamic range to me. Just flat IMO.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

jamesbjenkins said:


> Wow. Word police much? Are you a mod? I must have missed something. How about we stick to the pictures and photographic discussions and leave the handholding for the therapist's couch?



You're absolutely right.  I was completely wrong.  Politeness and civility have no place here or in any society.  I won't make that mistake again.


----------



## Bynx

Hopefully this will look a bit less flat. There is a big loss sometimes when pics get posted.


----------



## jake337

KongKurs said:


> Nice ones, bynx.
> 
> What bynx is trying to tell, is that your initial processed photos are more about tonemapping than HDR.
> HDR photos increase dynamic range massively, making it necessary to tonemap, in order for your monitor to be able to display the entire dynamic range. You "press the histogram back" in a way..
> 
> As you can see on bynx' images, the dynamic range is increased, making the grilles, wheels and other structures in the dark areas stand out better. The same goes for the lighter areas.
> If you are looking to create artistic tonemapped images like you have posted in here, maybe you don't need to do HDR all the time, just try out Topaz Adjust or something similar instead..?



Or learn how to "properly" process an HDR image _then _let the artistic side run from there!


Gotta learn to crawl before you run!


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

Indeed the first set are worse than most tonemapped single images.  I don't necessarily agree with the final edits that Bynx posted but they are good HDR starting points (aside from the sky) for a nice stylized image.  

I know he comes off harsh and doesn't necessarily communicate the way you would want but look at the images you'll see his has detail in the tires, the bumpers, the black areas - that is the reason you DO HDR.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

I disagree.


----------



## JAC526

Bynx said:


> Im sorry if I cant put sweet icing sugar on bad images. But these are definately not even HDR so I wont sugar coat my feelings. I might be a little more sympathetic if they were posted in the Altered Images storage bin, and make my comments about them from that point of view, but they are here in the HDR bin. Im willing to give any help I can, but if this is the look the OP wants, I dont know why he calls them HDR. In fact, I resent the insinuation. Sometimes the truth hurts, but we are all here to learn. I didnt say anything except the absolute truth. If you start off with 2 or more files for HDR to get details in the highlights and shadows, then process the image so you blow out the highlights and fill in the shadows then doing the HDR WAS a waste of time. And the same look could have been done using a single file and really poor Photoshop skills. I like the depth of field used in both images. And the backgrounds could be easily fixed giving better emphasis to the cars, but the processing is bad. And anything I say is my opinion. If Im wrong then jump in here and prove me wrong, dont just say it.



I like you Bynx.  Stick to your guns.  Its actually refreshing to see someone who has such a strong opinion on something.

Keep up the good work man.  Seriously.

In fact the first HDR I do I expect you to slam me.  Can't wait.


----------



## charlie76

What?  I strongly disagree


----------



## JAC526

Vendetta much?


----------



## pixmedic

and the countdown to thread-lock begins...5...4....3...2....1....


----------



## rexbobcat

I don't like too many of the 'naturally' processed HDRs. It just kind of defeats the purpose...

It kind of reminds me of having an unprocessed RAW image. I'm sure there are instances where HDR really does help the photograph, but composites from programs just...don't appeal to me unless they're tone mapped.

I do like the manually masked HDR photos though. They look like legit out of camera photographs. 

I'm to the point that I don't understand why we have this forum. I mean, of HDR is just compositing 3 photographs and adjusting curves then...how is that a standalone process from normal PP...


----------



## rexbobcat

I know what HDR is. It's a very simple technical concept, but unfortunately I don't find most of the 'authentic' stuff to be very aesthetically pleasing, because much of the time it ends up looking like an unprocessed RAW file like your first edit. And then in your second edit it appears on my screen that the highlights are blown out.

I don't understand how I can give my opinion and I'm lashed out at because I have no business being here...but then again you're the same guy who sent me this PM...

How are you not banned, dude.  _*Because the PM wasn't reported by antone who saw it*_. Moderators don't have any special access to the PM system. Moderator access to the PM system is the same as regular members access. *That's why it called a **Private Message*.
Moderators don't see every post, but when you report a post or a PM, we see that report in a forum section regular members don't see. Moderators check that report forum for new reports off and on all day long. 

You're like, 50 (Am I being generous?) freaking years old and you're basically doing the equivalent of sticking your tongue out and saying "so are you but what am I?" 

You're so damn petty. Give it up.


----------



## o hey tyler

rexbobcat said:


> I know what HDR is. It's a very simple technical concept, but unfortunately I don't find most of the 'authentic' stuff to be very aesthetically pleasing, because much of the time it ends up looking like an unprocessed RAW file like your first edit. And then in your second edit it appears on my screen that the highlights are blown out.
> 
> I don't understand how I can give my opinion and I'm lashes at because I have no business being here...but then again you're the same guy who sent me this PM...
> 
> How are you not banned, dude?
> 
> You like, 50 freaking years old and you're basically doing the equivalent of sticking your tongue out and saying "so are you but what am I?"
> 
> You're so damn petty. Give it up.



Oh wow.


----------



## vipgraphx

WOW just WOW, I can't believe this past week has gotten so out of control over HDR. 

Alls I can say is I hope there is light at the end of this tunnel.

I see Bynx's point on the whole subject however I really think he would catch more fly's with honey (honey being a better choice of words). In his defense though this forum has picked up quite a few new members these past months and they ask for critiques and while I am a big fan of trying not only saying the bad but, also saying the good.....uuummm others ideals for critique is straight to the point. Sometimes the truth hearts!!

There also has been a lot of single image photos that keep popping up with the label as "HDR" which they are not they are Fake of Faux HDR. It does kinda get annoying that folks want to call it HDR and not another 
appropriate name such as single image tone mapped. 

The start to a good HDR is having the correct exposures you need to merge them. The rest is all in the processing. What Bynx opinion on this is that if you can not get your processing down and screw it up than why bother?

I on the other hand know that we all have to start somewhere BUT, you should also be able to progress relatively  fast with all the help on here and youtube. IF you decide to post pictures that are not that great processed you should be able to take the truth thrown back at you and use that to get better and better.

Bynx was the same way with me when I first posted here. I remember one thread that I felt that he called me out and I got I admit I got my pannies in a  bunch and went and looked at his flickr site and called him on 
many of his pictures. Well I found some pretty sorry ones and some really really good ones.

I tell you what though...after that thread I wanted so much to show that I was not small fry and I was capable of producing some great HDR's. I honestly felt that I have accomplished my goals and have proven it time and time again. 

Now I will do what I want and if someone does not like it cool....no sweat off my back because I have the tools and knowledge to process many styles of HDR from Photo Realistic to Cartoony over cooked images. No one can take that away from me!!!

But, I did not give up and I did not give in, this forum made me stronger!!!!!!

My advice to the newer members is you might think your photos are excellent now but, they are not as good as they will be if you take the time to learn and grow. I would like to see how many of you progress in a few months.........You will look back at some of your first HDR's and say...I actually stood up for this crap:banghead: what was I thinking back then.

Bynx--- fight for what you believe in but, choose kinder words!!!!


----------



## manaheim

Bynx said:


> jdsfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They consist of 3 exposures, but I guess I just like massively overcooking things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats ok, as long as you realize that using the 3 images is a waste of time considering where you end up and are not HDR any longer. Im sure you could get the same bad results from using just one image.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute... YOU are telling HIM it's not an HDR?  Or somehow not within some given ruleset of HDR?

I hereby revoke your license to complain when I criticize people's methods and choices in the space of higher dynamic range photography.


----------



## unpopular

Too long to read. But I can pretty much guarantee whatever it is, I don't agree with Bynx.


----------



## unpopular

http://tjcnyc.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nestle-mob.jpg


----------



## manaheim

Bynx, you attack ME all the time... and for something as simple as saying "Gee, I don't think you got much from running this through an HDR process.  Honestly, you could have gotten this with one exposure."

I say that and you absolutely go off on me.

IMO, you're on some seriously thin ice with this line of argument.

And you started off this thread questioning someone else's interpretation of what is and is not an HDR... which, btw, I'll remind you that HDR stands for HIGH dynamic range... that term HIGH is both relative and arbitrary.  Therefore, there's really no clear way to define it and you're instantly on poor footing the second you question it.


----------



## unpopular

effing a. i thought i was special. Is there anyone here who Bynx hasn't attacked?


----------



## manaheim

Wow.  The more I read the more I chuckle.



People come to TPF to learn about and discuss photography... not just how to tone-map things.  Photography has a lot of other elements, but the impression I've had for quite some time from Bynx is that as long as it's HDR and it's HDR done well, it's a great image.  MY opinion is that particular viewpoint is rubbish.

Perhaps Bynx disagrees, and that's totally fine.  The difference is I don't attack the dude when he disagrees with me.  (or send nasty PMs...  wow on that one. Just wow.)

Anyway, I imagine I'll get skewered so I'll go quiet and let Bynx have his way with me.


----------



## unpopular

I always thought it was his own neighborhood and he was just bragging.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

By definition you don't like HDR you like Tonemapping. 

However as right as I think Bynx is about the core concepts of HDR I find it amusing you're complaining about personal attacks while telling people they have their heads up their ass and they don't get it.


----------



## rexbobcat

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> By definition you don't like HDR you like Tonemapping.
> 
> However as right as I think Bynx is about the core concepts of HDR I find it amusing you're complaining about personal attacks while telling people they have their heads up their ass and they don't get it.



But where is the line drawn between a true HDR image and one that is too tonemapped? I mean, I can make an HDR photo out of one file. It'll look like ****, but it's still an increase in dynamic range. And I can do that with tonemapping.

Is there really any objective way of knowing? That's what people are getting at. If we exclude certain photos from this forum, then it will cause more of a ruckus than when the mods move threads they think are NSFW.


----------



## JAC526

You know, if that's the worst thing that Bynx has to contend with, I'd say he lives a pretty good, if not simple, life. I've seen tone-mapped photos posted and correctly labled, and he damn near wets himself because someone had the audacity to post a non HDR image here...







Exactly.





I'm glad that you feel you've progressed.



You should take a moment to read your responses and you may realize you are doing exactly that which you criticize.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

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.


----------



## Steve5D

JAC526 said:


> You should take a moment to read your responses and you may realize you are doing exactly that which you criticize.



With the exception of the one image Bynx posted in this thread, find me a single post in which I've critiqued an image in the same manner that Bynx does, and I'll buy you a car...


----------



## Steve5D

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> My camera *prosuces* extended range photos but does not do in camera HDR...



It does _what_?


----------



## unpopular

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> 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.



I say it's not HDR unless it passes through a 32-bit pipeline, and uses at least more dynamic range available in a 16-bit pipeline. 

I am unsure if even Photomatix does this, or if they're just applying tone mapping to multiple 16-bit sources.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

unpopular said:


> BlueMeanieTSi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say it's not HDR unless it passes through a 32-bit pipeline, and uses at least more dynamic range available in a 16-bit pipeline.
> 
> I am unsure if even Photomatix does this, or if they're just applying tone mapping to multiple 16-bit sources.
Click to expand...


I've always merged in photoshop as the alignment is better and then tonemapped through photomatix, stylized back in photoshop/perfect effects.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

Maybe if they were having "city chicken" for dinner and host arguing that it was chicken and bynx was trying to tell them it was pork.


----------



## Steve5D

Second, I'm not trying to do anything more than understand what you're trying to say. Apologies if you find that to be offensive. Unfortunately, I have no idea what "*prosuces*" is, or is supposed to be...


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

I don't know what it typed it tried to autocorrect it, I apparently misspelled "processes" and that is what it changed it to, although most people probably would have figured it out pretty easily.


----------



## unpopular

Steve5D said:


> Second, I'm not trying to do anything more than understand what you're trying to say. Apologies if you find that to be offensive. Unfortunately, I have no idea what "*prosuces*" is, or is supposed to be...



LMFAO. After you calm down, read this post. It's ridiculously hostile.


----------



## Steve5D

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> I don't know what it typed it tried to autocorrect it, I apparently misspelled "processes" and that is what it changed it to, although most people probably would have figured it out pretty easily.



Okay...


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

He's mad I agreed with Bynx.


----------



## o hey tyler

BlueMeanieTSi said:
			
		

> I don't know what it typed it tried to autocorrect it, I apparently misspelled "processes" and that is what it changed it to, although most people probably would have figured it out pretty easily.



I thought you meant to type prosciutto...


----------



## unpopular

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> He's mad I agreed with Bynx.




Oh just join the angry mob already!


----------



## JAC526

Steve5D said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should take a moment to read your responses and you may realize you are doing exactly that which you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the exception of the one image Bynx posted in this thread, find me a single post in which I've critiqued an image in the same manner that Bynx does, and I'll buy you a car...
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about your critique of images but rather your personal attacks on Bynx.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

o hey tyler said:


> BlueMeanieTSi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what it typed it tried to autocorrect it, I apparently misspelled "processes" and that is what it changed it to, although most people probably would have figured it out pretty easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you meant to type prosciutto...
Click to expand...


I can see where that confusion in context may have come from   Maybe I was hungry and tried to type Bruschetta.


----------



## unpopular

Bruschetta with Tomato and Basil Recipe | Simply Recipes

If you need a recipe for bruschetta, you should just give up cooking. You're not italian, you never will be.


----------



## MTVision

I don't think that scenario fits very well. 

I don't know Bynx and I've actually never "talked" to him on this forum but I can almost guarantee he wouldn't do that at a dinner party. Even a five star chef probably wouldn't do that. 

Not trying to start an argument but if you don't like Bynx or the way he says things then just ignore him.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

unpopular said:


> Bruschetta with Tomato and Basil Recipe | Simply Recipes
> 
> If you need a recipe for bruschetta, you should just give up cooking. You're not italian, you never will be.



Dam, I was hoping too....stupid Scotch Irish.


----------



## Steve5D

MTVision said:


> [
> I don't think that scenario fits very well.
> 
> I don't know Bynx and I've actually never "talked" to him on this forum but I can almost guarantee he wouldn't do that at a dinner party. Even a five star chef probably wouldn't do that.



Really?

Guys like Gordon Ramsay and Robert Irvine do it all the time.


----------



## MTVision

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> Guys like Gordon Ramsay and Robert Irvine do it all the time.
> 
> And there's no reason to believe that Bynx wouldn't do that. Judging by how he conducts himself here, he's offered nothing to suggest he would be polite... anywhere...



I was just about to edit my post and say that OTOH Gordon Ramsay probably would.


----------



## unpopular

I'm confused. Do 5-star chefs have particularly good table manners?


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

Steve5D said:


> MTVision said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I don't think that scenario fits very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Guys like Gordon Ramsay and Robert Irvine do it all the time.
> 
> And there's no reason to believe that Bynx _wouldn't _do that. Judging by how he conducts himself here, he's offered nothing to suggest he would be polite... anywhere...
Click to expand...



S....a....r....c.....a................s.................m


----------



## JAC526

I'm not talking about your critique of images but rather your personal attacks on Bynx.[/QUOTE]


Could you point out an example of a personal attack?

That'd be swell, thanks...[/QUOTE]


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.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

unpopular said:


> I'm confused. Do 5-star chefs have particularly good table manners?




I would say Ramsey's critique of the photos as a photographer instead of food critic would me much more harsh than anything that has been said thus far.


----------



## Steve5D

unpopular said:


> I'm confused. Do 5-star chefs have particularly good table manners?



I know a couple of five star chefs. Some do, some don't...


----------



## Steve5D

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> S....a....r....c.....a................s.................m



Actually, I'm pretty sure it was offered up in absolute sincerity.

After all, if it wasn't, it would put her in agreement with me regarding Bynx...


----------



## unpopular

JAC526 said:


> Unless you are a psychiatrist? Who has treated Bynx?




I agree actually. This accusation didn't set well with me either. Kudos for JAC on bringing it up.

NPD is actually a really fascinating thing, and many Narcissists spend half the time in self-loathing when they cannot live up to their own expectations. They often cycle between self-loathing and self-inflation. As they maintain a degree of success they become more and more self-obsorbed until they cannot possibly live up to their own demands.

Several tellings of the myth of Narcissus has him committing suicide.


----------



## unpopular

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.


----------



## Steve5D

unpopular said:


> 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

Steve5D said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


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

unpopular said:


> 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

JAC526 said:


> 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

BlueMeanieTSi said:
			
		

> 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

JAC526 said:


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



Oh no... Not _that_...


----------



## unpopular

Steve5D said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you mute someone?  Going to take my own advice and mute Steve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no... Not _that_...
Click to expand...




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

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> 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?


----------



## JAC526

I think I've seen enough.


----------



## unpopular

Why do you feel it necessary to reply in the first place?


----------



## Bynx

Jac526 click on the person you want to ignore. Then look at their profile. Right under their pic is the option to ignore.


----------



## unpopular

Do you even think about what you're writing?

You may as well just have said "but he started it!".

http://www.perform.org.uk/images/uploaded/whining.jpg


----------



## Steve5D

unpopular said:


> Do you even think about what you're writing?
> 
> You may as well just have said "but he started it!".
> 
> http://www.perform.org.uk/images/uploaded/whining.jpg



Okay, so you lack the facility to reply to the simple question asked of you.

By the way, did you take that photo of the little girl, or did you steal it? Given where it's hosted, and where you're located, I'll bet the latter...


----------



## unpopular

I stole it. Go ahead and report me to TPF. Hell, go ahead and report me to the owner.

It will make your day.


----------



## EDL

Steve5D said:


> BlueMeanieTSi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to nitpick my spelling from a cell phone why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, don't assume I know that you're typing on a cell phone. I would offer this advice, though: If you're typing skills are so poor that you type something like "*prosuces*", and then you get upset when someone asks what it is, you might want to consider not posting from your phone.
> 
> Second, I'm not trying to do anything more than understand what you're trying to say. Apologies if you find that to be offensive. Unfortunately, I have no idea what "*prosuces*" is, or is supposed to be...
Click to expand...



Basic contextual comprehension makes it perfectly clear, but....


----------



## unpopular

I have absolutely no ethical problem with what I did, or others likewise.

I do have a positively huge problem with draconian and abusive copyright enforcement.


----------



## Steve5D

unpopular said:


> I have absolutely no ethical problem with what I did, or others likewise.
> 
> I do have a positively huge problem with draconian and abusive copyright enforcement.



Which is clear, as you're quite comfortable stealing the work of others and representing it as your own (which is exactly what you do when you fail to properly credit a photo used in a post)...


----------



## unpopular

well then, I'm glad that you cleared things up for everyone who may have been confused.

good on you. really.


----------



## EDL

But this isn't a dinner party and the posters almost always ASK for critique.  Even when they don't, MOST people here seem to offer their opinions anyway, so this little analogy is apples and oranges.  A closer analogy would be someone baking a pie and then giving out slices to see what every one thinks of it.


----------



## Steve5D

EDL said:


> Even when they don't, MOST people here seem to offer their opinions anyway...



And why is that?

Ego, that's why...


----------



## unpopular

Steve5D said:


> "But" it's spelled like a first grader wrote it.
> 
> The person who wrote addressed it, but thanks for your nonsensical input...



Okie dokie:

...but, what was posted was spelled as if a first grader had written it. The person who wrote this had already addressed the issue. Regardless, thank you for the nonsensical input.

Yeah. I can proofread, also.


----------



## unpopular

well. I have things to do now.

This thread was fun to troll! thx 5D.


----------



## charlie76

Setting a high standard is ok with me. I don't mind living in fear of the gurus. It is exactly like my engineering BS...some profs are not very gentle...and sometimes harsh.  It sets the bar high...and students generally improve because of it. I am more careful about what I post here because of the  "Bynx's" lurking. I've heard harsh stuff bout my images...makes me work a little harder on images I post. 
My $0.02....


----------



## JAC526

Bynx said:


> Jac526 click on the person you want to ignore. Then look at their profile. Right under their pic is the option to ignore.




Wonderful.  And wow look Steve he didn't call me an idiot for not knowing.  What a surprise!


----------



## tirediron

*I've had my fill of reported posts on this thread.  Passion is fine, even desirable in artists, but lets try and remember to at least pretend to be grown-ups when talking.  For those of you who may object to the way certain members phrase things, comment, etc, let me remind you of a great feature we have here at TPF.  It's called the "Ignore" list.  USE IT!*


----------

