# Bowling ball



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

Pro Optic 8mm Fisheye on Nikon D90.

Most scenes shot with extreme wide angle lenses are HDR by nature.


"Unblued"


----------



## AK_Jeff (May 10, 2012)

Maybe its me but it seems a little to blue


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

The ball or the photograph ?


----------



## vipgraphx (May 10, 2012)

Greens are way to electric and the composition really is not good. The sky is kinda whacky over all this does nothing for me. I hate to say but, its just not a good HDR IMO.


not really understanding 
"Most scenes shot with extreme wide angle lenses are HDR by nature"...........WHY?


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

*Sigh*

"Greens are way to(o) electric."

You live in Tucson so I wonder if you've ever seen the greens of full spring in New England.

"the composition really is not good"

The composition that you find "not good" was meant to be whimsical. You know. The ridiculous combination of nature and a bowling ball. Humor, see ?

"Not good" is a meaningless critique of just about anything. But in comparison to "kinda whacky" it borders on brilliant !

"its just not a good HDR"

The dynamic range of the subject covered about nine zones. I believe that qualifies as a high dynamic range (HDR.) How could it be a not good HDR if it covers nine zones ?

Perhaps you were substituting "HDR" for "HDR _photograph_." It's common to see this kind of mistake as people like to use contractions. If this is the case, than you should have written: "it's not a good HDR _photograph_." While grammatically correct, it's still meaningless because "good" isn't defined.

Clear writing is vanishing from society at an alarming rate.


----------



## grapnell (May 10, 2012)

Eneg,

I really like the idea.  What I would do to improve on it is make the bowling ball a little more the center of attention.  Bring it closer, make it bigger, and perhaps try to get the camera on ground level with the ball.  The greens are a little over-saturated, but all in all, its a very creative and interesting idea and composition.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Pro Optic 8mm Fisheye on Nikon D90.
> 
> *Most scenes shot with extreme wide angle lenses are HDR by nature.*



Care to elaborate on that?


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

To elaborate on VIPGRAFX's feelings about the composition:

It isn't a well composed shot. The POI (point of interest) is centered in the frame, and it takes up maybe 1/32nd of the actual image. If you hadn't told us that it were a bowling ball, no one would have known. 

There are a lot of extraneous distracting elements that detract from really focusing in on the juxtaposition of the bowling ball in the frame. If you want to exhibit juxtaposition, you should do so in a more thought out way. The way it is right now does not come across as "whimsical." It does however come across as "not thought out." 

Speaking to the color of the image, I can honestly say that in my 23 years of living in and traveling around New England, never have I ever seen trees and bushes with that amount of blue in them. Unless the New England that you speak of is also a region of Pandora from Avatar. In that respect, the HDR is not well done because it doesn't accurately represent the tonal range of the image, and the colors that are contained within it.


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.

So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.) 

Photography 101.



o hey tyler said:


> Eneg said:
> 
> 
> > Pro Optic 8mm Fisheye on Nikon D90.
> ...


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

I think lots of people knew it was a bowling ball.

"Pandora from Avatar." What the heck does that mean ?

23 years. Enough said.



o hey tyler said:


> To elaborate on VIPGRAFX's feelings about the composition:
> 
> It isn't a well composed shot. The POI (point of interest) is centered in the frame, and it takes up maybe 1/32nd of the actual image. If you hadn't told us that it were a bowling ball, no one would have known.
> 
> ...


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> I think lots of people knew it was a bowling ball.
> 
> "Pandora from Avatar." What the heck does that mean ?
> 
> ...



Yes, 23 years of my life have been spent in Maine and New England. I've done a fair amount of traveling around, and never seen colors that look in any way similar to what you have there. There are no blues in tree leaves, sorry. I think 23 years is more than an adequate amount of time to make that assertion, thank you. 

If you've been shut off from the outside world since 2009, you may not have heard of Avatar. In that case: IMDb - Avatar (2009)
No, it's not easy to tell that it's a bowling ball. You labeled the thread "bowling ball" and that is the only indication I have received that there is a ball with three finger holes drilled in it used for sliding down a waxed up lane with pins at the end. Like I said, 1/32nd of the frame is not enough to do the subject justice in terms of juxtaposition, and the centered composition does nothing but harm the image.

Are you so good at photography that you're above critique? That's the way it seems to me. No need to get defensive. The more you do, the more you'll get put in your place. This image has a long way to go before it 'works' for anyone but yourself. 

If you were more receptive to critique, your photography would improve over time. It doesn't seem like that's the way you operate though.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

"Put in your place." That's funny.






o hey tyler said:


> Eneg said:
> 
> 
> > I think lots of people knew it was a bowling ball.
> ...


----------



## jcskeeter (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.
> 
> So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)
> 
> Photography 101.



I think... Ugh, never mind. :roll:


----------



## Tony S (May 10, 2012)

Bizarre extreme colors, nothing close to reality in any part of the world. If you think those are correct colors then it's time to get a new monitor.

  If you want to use a wide angle for something like this you should use it to enhance and show your subject matter better.  Since you title this one "bowling ball", one would expect the ball the be the main focal point of the image, instead it's inconsequential leaving too much dead space in the foreground.  A better thought for this would be to move closer to the bowling ball, making it the focal point of the image but let the wide angle include the rest of the elements behind it.

  Lastly, welcome to the forum.  But if you are going to post images you really should be ready to accept critiques and comments even when they don't agree with your view of things. Take what you can from them and disregard the rest.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

jcskeeter said:


> Eneg said:
> 
> 
> > Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.
> ...



Isn't it fun to read posts from someone with less photographic knowledge than you do, yet they feel like they are infallible in the world of photography?


----------



## Trever1t (May 10, 2012)

Oh, I love this kind of thread! (that's sarcasm)

Eneg, why did you post this image if you are going to tear into the grammer and syntax of all those that respond? 


My opinion: Your "painterly" images are over-saturated. The composition, weak. That much is bearable but your demeanor is arrogant and condescending, less tolerable.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 10, 2012)

Wow Eneg, welcome to TPF ! I love it when new members come on here and show us awesome places we haven't seen before. I can't believe the wilderness is really that blue, that's awesome :thumbup:. Through your HDR you've really shown me a different way to look at forest shots and such. I mean, that shot would've been just _any old wilderness shot_, but luckily you had a bowling ball with you and you just put two and two together, tossed it out there into that field, and BOOM! _BRILLIANT!_Your whimsy is inspiring.

You have five posts so far, and each one I've learned a lot from. Some members here get caught up in what "looks good" and what is "technically sound" and void of "major composition and processing errors" like OheyTyler or whatever. I say *to heck with him*, to heck with the rules, to heck with all of that! 

We could really use another sharp eye around here to help us advance our sense of composition, HDR treatment, and the colors of the world! 

And lastly, I'll leave you with this poem inspired by you: I never _knew _about the color _blue _until I met _you_.:hugs:


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

I've been a photographer for over forty years. You grew up in the point, shoot and Photoshop it era. You'll never know what I know about the photographic process.


----------



## Eneg (May 10, 2012)

Grammar.



Trever1t said:


> Oh, I love this kind of thread! (that's sarcasm)
> 
> Eneg, why did you post this image if you are going to tear into the grammer and syntax of all those that respond?
> 
> ...


----------



## kundalini (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.


Hmm, and all this time I thought it was the capability of the sensor that determined the amount of dynamic range captured.  Are you sure you're not referring to the Angle of View that an UWA can cover?

As far as the shot presented, the subject is lost or at least inconsequential.  With an UWA, you can get very close to the subject and still leave plenty of the environment to tell a story.

Welcome to TPF.


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think YOU are confused about what High Dynamic Range means. HDR does NOT equal Wide Field of View.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> I've been a photographer for over forty years. You grew up in the point, shoot and Photoshop it era. You'll never know what I know about the photographic process.



I think "photographer" is too loose of a term. Perhaps you've been a "person that enjoys taking photos." Or even a "person that actuates shutters." 

You're also assuming far too much. You have 9 posts total. I know myself, and that I've progressed through photography with the mentality of "get it right in camera." Not, "botch the exposure and composition, I'll correct it in post" ideology. I'm sure a lot of other people work the same way, you (OP) not included. 

I also have my own darkroom, and shoot film photography on occasion. You're the one posting digitally manipulated HDR images, rather than doing it on film, if you'd like to split hairs. 

The truth of the matter is, if you have as much photographic experience as you claim to, and you've been an active professional in the field... Your image would have a pleasing composition and a realistic color pallet. Unfortunately, it doesn't. And for that reason, I don't think it's right for you to call yourself anything other than a photographic hobbyist. 

Have a great day.


----------



## Trever1t (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Grammar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



aww, come here and give me a big smoochie! :hug::


----------



## Tony S (May 10, 2012)

> I've been a photographer for over forty years. You grew up in the point, shoot and Photoshop it era. You'll never know what I know about the photographic process.​



  Now that's sarcasm... and egotism.  lol



  and how did he get those white clouds so blue?????


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> I've been a photographer for over forty years. You grew up in the point, shoot and Photoshop it era. You'll never know what I know about the photographic process.


I am always the one that comes to the defense of a new comer when they get attacked, but you are on your own. And you, my friend, are going to get chewed up and spit out on this forum. Remember old Hugh told you so. O Hey Tyler has probably forgotten more about photography than you will ever know. If you have 40 years of photography experience, you&#8217;re hiding something.
Good luck


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (May 10, 2012)

I love it! Please post more _photographs_.


----------



## sm4him (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> I've been a photographer for over forty years. You grew up in the point, shoot and Photoshop it era. You'll never know what I know about the photographic process.



I daresay NONE of us--even us 'old timers'--will ever know what you "know" about the photographic process. Because what you "know" and reality are not peacefully co-existing.


----------



## sm4him (May 10, 2012)

LOVELY photo of the Lorax trees, by the way! Wonder what kind of bird laid that big blue egg though?



Tony S said:


> Bizarre extreme colors, nothing close to reality in any part of the world. If you think those are correct colors then it's time to get a new monitor.



If you think those are correct colors, a new monitor is really the LEAST of one's worries. :lmao:


----------



## Bynx (May 10, 2012)

I think this is a little better for color correction but the sky is so far off it needs to be replaced or reshot.







In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition. Those criticising should be focusing on the HDR and tone mapping aspects of the shot. The rest is your problem. You cant teach someone composition it is just something we have or we dont.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Bynx said:


> In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition.



Oh that's right. I forgot composition doesn't matter in HDR images. 

Foolish me!


----------



## fotomumma09 (May 10, 2012)

No offense but I find the colours almost offensive to my eyes. 

It is very unique though.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 10, 2012)

Bynx said:


> In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition. Those criticising should be focusing on the HDR and tone mapping aspects of the shot. The rest is your problem. You cant teach someone composition it is just something we have or we dont.



NooooOOoOoOo Bynx. Don't put the cart before the horse!


----------



## Josh66 (May 10, 2012)

What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?


----------



## nos33 (May 10, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?



it looks like the ghost of a bear or something


----------



## nos33 (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.)
> 
> Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)
> 
> Photography 101.



So basically everyone in the world shoots HDR because they have a lens on their camera?  A fish eye lens can give me an HDR just as well as my 18-55 telephoto.  

And your pictures hurt my eyes very much.  I cant judge the composition or subject matter because all I can now see is Blue.  I dont think I have ever seen nature look that way.  I live in Utah and it does get VERY green around here and it still does not compare to the pictures you show here.

And you attitude needs to be reworked just a little.  I dont care if you have 10 posts or 10,000 but your knowledge seems lacking about photography.  

I have had a camera since i was 13 so that should make me a photographer right? And then I can say that I have 19 years photography experience.

Calm down with the way you treat people in here and learn what you can.  I think  I have gotten more negative criticism than good, but I dont treat people like crap.  I take what they tell me and see if I can improve my process.  If you look at the HDR pictures that I took while learning, they looked a lot like your "bowling ball" but I learned from the people in here and improved my process so now i look back to those older ones and I feel like i am doing better.


----------



## Josh66 (May 10, 2012)

nos33 said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > What is that blue thing in front of the trees on the right side?
> ...


HAHA - that's _exactly_ what I thought.


----------



## Netskimmer (May 10, 2012)

This thread has to be a joke right? One of our more mischievous members started a new account to yank our collective chain.


----------



## Trever1t (May 10, 2012)

It's Soblik... no, wait, he NEVER posted an image.


----------



## SCraig (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.
> 
> So lets review. Since very wide angle lenses very often present the photographer with a wide range of light levels in his scene, a photograph taken with such a lens would by nature have a HDR (high dynamic range.)
> 
> Photography 101.


Soooo ...... If I shoot a photograph of a black bear at midnight with a wide angle lens and intentionally underexpose it by four or five stops then it is automatically an HDR image simply because I used a wide angle lens?  I think not.  Photography 101 (first week).

Oh, not that it means anything, but I got my first camera in 1963 so I think my "Right At 50 Years" trumps your "Over 40 Years".


----------



## Josh66 (May 10, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Eneg said:
> 
> 
> > Well you see very wide angle lenses have very wide coverage and as such they typically present the photographer with a high dynamic range scene (HDR.) I think you're confusing "HDR" with "HDR photograph." For example if you looked at a high dynamic range photograph _you'd_ likely call the photograph "an HDR." I'd call it an HDR _photograph_.
> ...


Nononono...  You're misinterpreting him.

All he's saying is that _The World_ in front of him was HDR, because he was using a wide angle lens.  Remember - this is not a HDR _photograph_.  This is simply a (non-HDR) photo of a HDR scene (the world).


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 10, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > Eneg said:
> ...



Right, now you have it, because "scenes shot with extreme wide angle lenses are HDR by nature". WTF??


----------



## rexbobcat (May 10, 2012)

I always wonder what plane of reality people like this live on. Has logic forgone that realm of the human mind?


----------



## Trever1t (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> *Sigh*"Greens are way to(o) electric."You live in Tucson so I wonder if you've ever seen the greens of full spring in New England."the composition really is not good"The composition that you find "not good" was meant to be whimsical. You know. The ridiculous combination of nature and a bowling ball. Humor, see ?"Not good" is a meaningless critique of just about anything. But in comparison to "kinda whacky" it borders on brilliant !"its just not a good HDR"The dynamic range of the subject covered about nine zones. I believe that qualifies as a high dynamic range (HDR.) How could it be a not good HDR if it covers nine zones ?Perhaps you were substituting "HDR" for "HDR _photograph_." It's common to see this kind of mistake as people like to use contractions. If this is the case, than you should have written: "it's not a good HDR _photograph_." While grammatically correct, it's still meaningless because "good" isn't defined.Clear writing is vanishing from society at an alarming rate.


 Now you march right back out that door and come back in here with a whole new attitude young man!


----------



## prodigy2k7 (May 10, 2012)

I think he means for example, with a super wide lens, you are more likely to capture the deep shadows and bright highlights of the world compared to a superzoom lens capturing only a small portion of the world around you.

Still, hes a weird one...


----------



## Bynx (May 10, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > In the HDR forum I would ignore comments like poor composition.
> ...



I dont think comments about composition are very helpful in an HDR forum when the OP needs to learn about HDR itself and not be given opinions of composition. If there is nothing else to pick on then go for composition. Thats just my opinion.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 10, 2012)

I kinda agree with you. I may not be the best example but, I think when I first started off I had not concern about composition what so ever as my main focus was the processing. I think however through out all of that I kept hearing time and time again about composition and it got annoying BUT, I also think it has helped me along the way because now when I shoot I am planning by pictures better and trying to keep all that has said in the past. I take more time with my shots and I am not posting every shot I take anymore. Now I am trying to choose the ones that I think over all are my better ones. Still need work on composition and what I am going to do is something you suggested along time ago and take with me a white card board with a cut out so I can picture and see my frame before I shoot. 


I agree that in the HDR forum processing is KEY but, all in all it is a complete package that makes the over all picture work.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Bynx said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx said:
> ...



I think composition comes before learning to create HDRs. An HDR image with crappy composition is just a processed photo with crappy composition. To make a photograph aesthetically pleasing, composition is key. Processing plays second fiddle to the fundamentals of photography.


----------



## Bynx (May 10, 2012)

Ya but I believe composition isnt something you can learn, but its inside us. Some have it some dont. You can give personal opinions about what you think looks good or how the photo would look better to you, or you can quote some rule. But thats all second place to the processing of the HDR image. This isnt the Composition forum is it? Yes its part and parcel of the whole image, but when the OP is so far off with knowledge about HDR its better to focus the comments about that. In my opinion.
Also no one picks up a camera and starts off shooting HDR. Composition, exposure, and the other aspects to a photo should be familiar before shooting HDR. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## IByte (May 10, 2012)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> It's Soblik... no, wait, he NEVER posted an image.



Thephotoguy's MO.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 10, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> Ya but I believe composition isnt something you can learn, but its inside us. Some have it some dont. You can give personal opinions about what you think looks good or how the photo would look better to you, or you can quote some rule. But thats all second place to the processing of the HDR image. This isnt the Composition forum is it? Yes its part and parcel of the whole image, but when the OP is so far off with knowledge about HDR its better to focus the comments about that. In my opinion.
> Also no one picks up a camera and starts off shooting HDR. Composition, exposure, and the other aspects to a photo should be familiar before shooting HDR. Again, just my opinion.



I've never heard of anyone who can't learn to shoot better from a composition standpoint.  Sure, it requires study of the field. Sure, it requires a basic understanding of visual elements and how they function in space. Sure, it can take years and years to get a good handle on it. But I've never heard anyone say it can't be learned.

I think one problem is this is a photography forum. Photographers don't see these pictures and say "oh it's an hdr pic in the hdr subforum, let's throw every rule of photography out the window and judge this pic and how well the spiders were placed in photomatix"

And they shouldn't think, because that's just ass backwards. These are still photos. Hdr is a tool to create and better a photo, not to to replace a photo.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

Bynx said:


> *Ya but I believe composition isnt something you can learn, but its inside us. Some have it some dont. You can give personal opinions about what you think looks good or how the photo would look better to you, or you can quote some rule. But thats all second place to the processing of the HDR image. This isnt the Composition forum is it?*



So if composition can't be learned, why do art schools not have a preliminary test where they say "Hey, prospective students. Take these objects and arrange them in a pleasing composition. If you can't do this, you'll never be able to." 

If you're suggesting that HDR photography has no need for proper composition, or any variety of pleasing aesthetic elements, that's an extremely ignorant statement to make IMO. You can process any scene or image into being an HDR photograph, but without the fundamentals of photography (exposure, composition, general interest) it's just a bad photo with HDR processing. 



> Yes its part and parcel of the whole image, but when the OP is so far off with knowledge about HDR its better to focus the comments about that. In my opinion.



So your opinion is to disregard the fundamentals, and have them work on the unnecessary aspects (such as HDR)? Rather than starting with a strong composition, and increasing the detail and tonality via HDR?

Wow. 



> Also no one picks up a camera and starts off shooting HDR. *Composition, exposure, and the other aspects to a photo should be familiar before shooting HDR.* Again, just my opinion.



Yes, that's what I am saying. The fundamentals come first. So why did you contradict yourself? 

You have to learn to walk before you can run. HDR (and other alternative processing methods) are running at full tilt.


----------



## Bynx (May 10, 2012)

I didnt contradict myself. Im only saying the HDR forum isnt the place to concentrate on poor composition. It should be the place to help the OP make his HDR processing better not to teach him how to look through the viewfinder. I could be wrong, but I dont think Ive ever commented on someones composition in the HDR focus. To be honest I never pay any attention to composition. Im only looking at the processing.


----------



## Trever1t (May 10, 2012)

I understand what you're saying Bynx, in the HDR section the critique is and should be directly addressed to the HDR process(ing) and composition is not the primary concern whereas in general, artistic merit is directly related to the composition and the artists selection and arrangement of subject matter.


----------



## kharp (May 10, 2012)

Eneg said:


> Perhaps you were substituting "HDR" for "HDR _photograph_." It's common to see this kind of mistake as people like to use contractions.If this is the case,* than* you should have written: "it's not a good HDR _photograph_." While grammatically correct, it's still meaningless because "good" isn't defined.
> Clear writing is vanishing from society at an alarming rate.


You meant "then", Professor.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 10, 2012)

kharp said:


> Eneg said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you were substituting "HDR" for "HDR _photograph_." It's common to see this kind of mistake as people like to use contractions.If this is the case,* than* you should have written: "it's not a good HDR _photograph_." While grammatically correct, it's still meaningless because "good" isn't defined.
> ...



MEGA BURN.


----------



## Bynx (May 11, 2012)

If you read this thread from the beginning you will see that there was only chatter about his composition and the placement of his bowling ball which for some reason some couldnt identify. It wasnt a good image and needed color correction and better HDR (tone mapping) in my opinion. Yet instead of addressing the HDR problems the focus was on the guys composition. Thats why I said the things about composition that I did. Of course if someone posts a good HDR image and you cant find fault with it then mention that its a good HDR but the composition needs fixing, in your opinion. In the light of the new day I hope this is clear.


----------



## rokvi (May 11, 2012)

Its like flogging a mule thats dead, then turning on each other...


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 11, 2012)

You have a valid point, Bynx, and I agree 95%. In his case, however, the first comment / critique given was from VIP and he commented directly to the processing. It was immediately after that critique that the OP started slamming VIP and o hey tyler. That is what brought out the big guns. Most of us have a lot to learn about HDR and you are one of the best to learn from, but if someone gives your honest critique on what I see as poor picture by any standard and you immediately start questioning their abailities and overall intelligence, you should expect a pretty harsh, no holds barred response.
Just my $0.02. 
Now, lets all just get along and play together like big kids!


----------



## o hey tyler (May 11, 2012)

Bynx said:


> In the light of the new day I hope this is clear.



No, it's not. 

Fundamentals first. Processing second. Always. No matter what type of photography, no matter what the "heading" of the forum is. 

If you only critique the processing, then of course it will be impossible for someone to learn composition like you said in your earlier post. If you critique both, the OP can go back and refer to it (assuming that they decide to re-read the thread). No, this isn't a "composition forum," but none of them are. Photography is an art that fundamentally relies on good composition for a piece of work to be accepted by the masses. 

I just really simply do not agree with you. I think your logic is broken.


----------



## EDL (May 11, 2012)

Something went horribly wrong in the HDR processing.  The way it looks,  it seems as if it was taken with a cellphone camera...an older one at  that.  Not particularly sharp, lacking detail and it looks like it's 16-bit color or something.


----------



## LizardKing (May 11, 2012)

Dude, when you upload photos here, you have to be prepared to receive the feedback... you cannot have a response or something to say to every comment you receive... *it just doesnt work that way*!

I don't mean to be offensive with this, but these photos are not worth 1 dime... Just leave them aside, look forward and keep learning. Its important to be critic with our own photos.


----------



## fokker (May 12, 2012)

40 years of photography experience, maybe that means he's still processing images on a commodore 64, it would certainly explain the inexplicable colors in the photo.


----------



## blackrose89 (May 12, 2012)

What's the blue bear thing in front of the trees? Can the OP please explain lol.


----------



## Tony S (May 12, 2012)

But he didn't process it as an HDR....... it was a result of his ultra wide angle lens capturing a wide dynamic range according to the OP. lol

So we should be arguing about his lens choice for producing his idea of HDR. Or better yet the fact that the lens does not determine the dynamic range, that that is a function of either the film or sensor in the camera.


----------

