# LA MONTANA MAGICA (MAGIC MOUNTAIN)



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

I took one my HDR pictures and processed the heck out of it. I had like this photo and when I was in that spot shooting it just felt really cool. I live in Tucson and just 30-40 min away we have Mt. lemon that is our Forest in the desert. Its one of Tucson talk about places. I wanted to make this a magical image. Not going for photo realistic at all but added more graphic work into it bringing out who I am.




LA MONTANA MAGICA by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

CC welcome


----------



## Bynx (Dec 19, 2011)

I like it. Well done.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

What exactly is it about these extreme HDRs do you enjoy? What aspect of the subject do you hope to emphasize?


----------



## Bynx (Dec 19, 2011)

For me, I enjoy the painterly, photo reality, yet not really a photo look to it.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

To me it's a novelty that has little to do with the subject, it's about technique - without anything more, once you see it, you've seen them all. I think it can work, but in this case I am not really seeing it - and the OP seems to post everything using this extreme processing, which makes me kind of wonder why and what he or she had in mind for the subject.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

unpopular said:


> What exactly is it about these extreme HDRs do you enjoy? What aspect of the subject do you hope to emphasize?



What Bynx said.

Its being able to make someone look at it and think for a bit. Whether or not they like is not the concern but, if they can look at the image and think is this real? is this a painting? is this a real place in this world? I like to process/edit. Its what I enjoy. I love art and all its form whether its a painting, photography, sculpture digital drawings or illustration I like it all. So I spend a lot of time doing what I like to do. Trying to take a photo and just go with it. Listening to music on the computer I get in the zone. I not only look at the processing as "Oh this looks fake its not real" its what went into the processing that intrigues me. Vibrant, saturated colors the POP factor is something that draws my eye in.  Some people like Blonds others like Brunettes some people like Fake boobs, sprayed tans and bleach blond hair..

So in simple form its what I am attracted to at this time in my life in regards to HDR..

What if you could climb up on top of the mountain/rock and at the right moment and right time while the sun is in the right spot something magical happend?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

vipgraphx said:


> Some people like Blonds others like Brunettes some people like Fake boobs, sprayed tans and bleach blond hair..



uhm. ok. 



> I not only look at the processing as "Oh this looks fake its not real"  its what went into the processing that intrigues me. Vibrant, saturated  colors the POP factor is something that draws my eye in.



So it's eye candy then.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

Yes exactly.

I would like to provide a link to photomatix gallery. Look how many photos are of the extreme HDR. I just find these fascinating! I see more extreme,vibrant colors than not and so I think 
I might have been under the impression that this is what sells....

HDR tone mapped or fused photos from Photomatix users


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

I am sure that it will sell. So did the Spice Girls and Starland Vocal Band.

The problem with images that are driven by technique and not by subject is that once you've seen one, you've seen them all. It gets stale very quickly.

I am not against the technique. One of my favorite images uses uses it:


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

I have liked this style for a very time if and when it happens that I get tired of it then so be it but, as for now I will enjoy it without regret.:thumbup: I don't think they are all the same because HDR is always going to take on a different appearance with different images. There are many additional editing that can be done in photoshop , nik software color effex, topaz and more that will get many different outcomes as well as similar but not exact. 

Cool image. I don't even want to say what it looks like though


----------



## Bynx (Dec 19, 2011)

unpopular you have a pretty sad look on life. Seen one seen them all. I guess by the time you are 10 years old you will have seen everything so nothing left but to see the face of God.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

^^ ehh. ok?




vipgraphx said:


> I don't think they are all the same because HDR is always going to take on a different appearance with different images.




My point is though that when it's something so sensational there isn't really much to think about beyond the sensual. It becomes a "yep, it's saturated" or "uhhu, it kind of looks like it's painted .. again". No two images are the same, but what motivates our interest in them doesn't change much from image to image and there isn't a whole lot left to talk about.




> There are many additional editing that can be done in photoshop , nik software color effex, topaz and more that will get many different outcomes as well as similar but not exact.




Those filters are a waste of money. Almost everything they do can be done within Photoshop without them, and typically done more naturally with much more control and in much less predictable ways.



> Cool image. I don't even want to say what it looks like though



dood. you need a girlfriend.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

unpopular said:


> ^^ ehh. ok?
> 
> My point is though that when it's something so sensational there isn't really much to think about beyond the sensual. It becomes a "yep, it's saturated" or "uhhu, it kind of looks like it's painted .. again". No two images are the same, but what motivates our interest in them doesn't change much from image to image and there isn't a whole lot left to talk about.
> 
> ...



You have a right to your opinion as well as likes and dislikes just remember that its only your opinion and not a fact. In regards to the software plug ins I would disagree. I have used photoshop since 1999 and am pretty good at what I using the program. However there are many things that you just can not do in photoshop. Nik software offers control point where you can apply certain filters and select a point and take away the effect or add more of the effect in certain areas with out effecting it globally. The noise reduction in photo shop is really not that good where as Topaz Denoise has a much nicer noise reduction plug in that gives you way more control of the image while keeping detail. There are many filters that Topaz, Topaz adjust has a an hdr filter that really gives an hdr look which in photoshop really can not replicate. Same as Color effex and photomatix. When time is money you need power you need to be able to have a fast work flow with more options and your disposal. This is why its in my opinion that plug ins are not a waist of money. I would agree with you if Photoshop had all these features incorporated into the software and they were actually useful. Believe me I am a photoshop junkie and just love the program and would say that those other programs would not be anything without photoshop. Since I actually make a living using the graphic design software I have found myself many times thinking I wish photoshop offered this tool so it would be more efficient and not take so long. As I do digital photo restoration there are many filters I have used within the program that did not look right and now with all the extra software companies, it makes life easier which translates to less time doing the same thing and doing it better sometime NOT ALL THE TIME!
I charge $40 an hour and although its great to spend all day on a clients job and get paid it is better to save the client money as they appreciate the savings and frees up more time for new cliental. Once again just an example of how the software is not a waist of money but more of an investment that will pay for it self in just a few jobs.

I am 36 years old and have 4 kids. I do not need a girl friend nor want one as I am happily married. Since you did say that I am sure you know exactly what that looks like its pretty obvious and has nothing to do with my marital or sex status.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

You talk like you're the only graphic artist on this forum, and you need to stop. Seriously. It's getting super annoying. You're coming across as insufferable and obnoxious and there is a reason people are thinking you're nineteen.

I've been using Photoshop since I was like 12 years old at version 2.0. While I wasn't doing anything too serious with it then, I was when I was at college studying digital imaging with an emphasis on Imaging and Reproduction - this was about when you were just learning. If you are wondering how that time frame worked out, it was because I graduated high school two years early at the age of sixteen. I'm not going to give you a full resume or anything, but you get my drift. You're not the cat's pajamas. You're not the only one here that does this kind of work.

I don't care how much you charge. I don't care how many kids you have. And you have to have seen a comment like that coming your way when you make such chauvinistic remarks as you had here in this thread.

I'll admit I was a little bit overly enthusiastic about the filters. I guess my clients just have had higher standards than a bunch of novelty effects which probably aren't going to be printable anyway.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

I know I am not the only graphic artist I was just explaining why I don't see it being a waist of money. sorry if you took it personal or the wrong way. If you have used photoshop that long you should know many of today's plug ins were not something photoshop could do. I don't even like photoshops HDR merging as of today. I think it lacks a little but that's just me.You ask questions I answer, you reply as if my answer is not right. I explain and back up why my answers is As it is. The total cost of those programs is really nothing color effex was the most at under $200 and the topazI think I paid like $115 for both adjust and Denoise.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

It's not that you're wrong, bro. It's the arrogance you're coming across with that's bothering people. You seem like you throw around your qualifications a lot.

It'd be a lot more effective if you'd just say "I disagree ... here's why" and not "I disagree, here's my qualifications"


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

Yeah i get your point. I am not really good with forums as I have only been apart of two forums and this one people seem to be more blunt.I thought I was Explaining  why and not trying to through out qualifications out. I thought it was a thorough answer.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

Though still.

I think that if you over-rely on these filters your work will become stale. It has been my experience that a graphic artist's job is to determine and provide your client's look, and not so much your preference. The last thing a client wants is to be branded by you.

--

I still maintain that this pseudo HDR effect can be achieved without filters. They are nothing but local contrast adjustments, and my bet is that they can be achieved using the highpass filter. In fact, I recall reading this on another forum:

Relic

The effect does get close, and I bet this teq can be modified to prevent decreased saturation. As for time consumption, that's what actions are for, right?


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

You have to understand that I do not make a living of of photography. I make a living off of screen prinilting , uniforms, printing and graphic design work such as logos advertising and banners.I do a very good job listening to my clients and creating art work that meets their needs not mine. I use illustrator mostly for my line art(vector) I do side jobs with photgography but at this point it's mainly for me as a hobby.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

I have a pretty broad array of design experience, everything from two color logos to six color magazine covers to pre-show, in-theater advertisement on two-story tall movie screens. I have never been tempted to get these kinds of filters. I always felt I could communicate the same kind of ideas without them in ways that are more controlled and less "Topaz Adjust - like". I suppose if a client absolutely insisted on it, I could run a tonemap through LuminanceHDR, or do some local contrast work using a hp filter.

I don't think I've ever seen an ad agency that uses these plugins, I have never been recommended I buy them by professors or other professionals and I've never been on a job site that had them installed. 

I think when push comes to shove, these filters are popular amongst some photographers, especially hobbyists, but i don't think they have a whole lot of professional use, at least not in the graphic arts field simply because they lack a degree of sophistication.

That said, I do think they might have uses as an intermediate step. I just am not sure that they're worth the money. At least not to me.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

I dont use these filters in graphic design work. They are photo filters and like I said before there were times when i use to airbrush photos as part of digital restoration and it would have been nice to save time and have a filter that would do this for me. Now I do and when I need to use it I will. Most of my paid work has nothing to do with photography, once again its a hobby and I do photo shoots on the side (portraits and family shoots) If a client wants a softening filter I use photoshop  but thats about as far as it goes with filters with clients. I had one recent photo shoot that they wanted me to make it look like a painting so I tone-mapped it. Other than that I agree with you about these not being something in the industry as for the past 10 years I never used them with my day to day job. It was not until I got into landscape photography that I started using them. For my own purpose!

Why has this discussion gotten this far. I post a thread of some picture I took and stated why I did what I did and I get questioned about it. I already explained why. That was not good enough for you then I answered again I thought we both came to the end at "eye candy". If you don't like it cool just say it and be done with it but having to question why, well I think thats a little off topic. Read through your post in this thread and see where it took curve. You started a response and Bynx even questioned your response.

Its not that your not entitled to your opinion, any thing constructive I will take into consideration but just to simply say "The problem with images that are driven by technique and not by subject is that once you've seen one, you've seen them all. It gets stale very quickly" is not a fact its an opinion why else would these types of pictures be displayed all over the internet. 

Have you seen Stuck In Customs HDR Photography ? That guy makes a living doing HDR and uses all these programs himself along with others. Is he not a professional? You may know many people that don't use them but there is always a flip side to that and those that do. Just because your professors have not recommended them to you does not mean they can not be used to achieve professional results. 

Once again I agree with you in the sense that in graphic design work they are not necessary and or needed for most jobs. I would not tone map a logo or use a skin softener for a website you are right. As far as photography goes I don't know I am not a professional photographer and I have not interviewed or done a pole on who uses these plugins in their professional work. I would assume that there are a lot that do and a lot that don't but its not safe to assume so I don't. I don't tell people anything like its a fact. IF its an opinion I will simply say it and say its my opinion.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 20, 2011)

Vip, you are wasting your time. Unpopular is an idiot, who is so full of crap Im betting his eyes are brown. He clearly doesnt know what he is spewing and replying to his nonsense is just feeding his fire. He doesnt like HDR but he hangs around the forum just to stir the pot.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

Bynx- have you even read what I have been saying? Seems to me you're too busy defending HDR.

---

First, grow up. I'm not going to disclaim everything I say as being an opinion, you should be secure enough realize that. Who cares if I think my opinion is 'fact'? I'm not the boss of you, so stop whining. 

I never EVER said that I dislike HDR, or even so-called extreme HDR. I've used it myself, and I like the results. But the image must benefit from the technique, not the other way around. If you cannot see that many of the images at Stuck In Customs do benefit from the technique - that they are crafted images which have been edited in such a way to maximize their usefulness as HDR and that each image is unique, not the result of some fancy-pants filter - that many are first _good images _before being _hdr images_ and that the HDR processing benefits each image _individually_ then you have no idea what photography is in the first place.

HDR should be first and foremost about extending dynamic range, not just an excuse to be too lazy and impatient to wait for better lighting or learn how to use a camera without clipping the sky, or in order to get some gimmicky effect that looks "cool". Photography is about the _subject_.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 20, 2011)

Back to the original image for a moment...  If I download this image and view it in Photoshop, it's much fuller, richer and more evenly balanced than the image that appears in this thread, even when viewed side-by-side on the same, calibrated monitor.  This isn't the first time I've seen images getting significantly altered by the act up uploading and posting.  So, I think we ought not get too critical of images that appear in forum posts unless they show obvious defects like haloing and fluorescent-level saturation.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

^^ the problem is that you are not using a color managed browser, or for some reason color management is not enabled or functioning.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 20, 2011)

Ive noticed the exact same thing Slick. I always upload an image to tinypic and they give me the url to paste into the post here. Images can often loose a lot in terms of sharpness and some color shift. Haloing and fluorescent saturation is strictly the tone mapping errors of the OP.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

I noticed when using photobucket it made the images softer and so I prefer flickr which seems to keep a better image quality. I am not sure about color never really noticed that part.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 20, 2011)

Bynx said:


> Ive noticed the exact same thing Slick. I always upload an image to tinypic and they give me the url to paste into the post here. Images can often loose a lot in terms of sharpness and some color shift. Haloing and fluorescent saturation is strictly the tone mapping errors of the OP.



Thanks, Bynx.  I just want to get past the name calling to a useful critique.  I put up three versions of this image on a calibrated monitor: 1) color managed photoshop, 2) non-color managed .jpg, and 3) the forum post displayed with the non-color-managed Safari browser.  The forum post was by far the worst of the three.  The color-managed photoshop version was the best.  I think it's an assertive, interpretative image, but I also think it would make a more striking print than the forum post would suggest.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 20, 2011)

I wonder if it makes any difference if you use sRGB color profile when saving the files. But I cant see how that would help the soft focus I seem to often notice.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 20, 2011)

*SlickSalmon*, thanks for getting the thread back on topic. The Rock is the main subject and the added color in the sky, lens flare and other things I did was all to back up the name of the title "Magic Mountain"  I chose this picture out of the bunch from our Mt. Lemon trip because I thought it had the best composition and when taking the photo I tried to follow the rule of thirds. On this huge mountain there is only one spot that has these distinctive rock formations.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 20, 2011)

Bynx said:


> I wonder if it makes any difference if you use sRGB color profile when saving the files. But I cant see how that would help the soft focus I seem to often notice.



It may, I have noticed that some of my greyscale images embedded with Generic Grey will render as if they were embedded with Generic Grey 2.2. Converting to sRGB will be more likely to be compatable but on occasion may not be 100% accurate.

On my end, using Safari 5.1.2 on OSX Lion, this image rendered similarly no matter what program I used and was embeded with VIP's monitor profile.

---

VIP - are you editing using this profile? If so, you may want to consider using AdobeRGB or some other wide-gamut color space, not because you can see the whole of the AdobeRGB gamut (you can't), but rather because you'll have a larger pallet for your CMS to choose from.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 20, 2011)

Another solution could be to save image for WEB. Between the browser, the host site, this site, color profiles, computers, its amazing an image makes it at all.


----------

