# Great Detail on this aircraft



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

This Stearman Bi-Plane caught everyone's eye.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2013)

There might have been great detail at one point, then you made it soft by your overwhelming amount of processing applied.


----------



## play18now (Oct 10, 2013)

I agree, I find it to be a little over processed.  I'd like to see the original, I bet that looks awesome.  It's a pretty good shot to begin with, but the post-processing makes it look to my eye like a video game


----------



## ronlane (Oct 10, 2013)

halo's, I see halo's.


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

Tough crowd....but I love it.  Halo's?  My clients love them....$$ Cha-Ching!


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2013)

cool story.


----------



## KmH (Oct 10, 2013)

Are your clients photographers?


----------



## ffarl (Oct 10, 2013)

I dig it man.  Prepare for a dissertation on over-processing and how your clients don't know what they want because they're not experts like everyone on the forum, but don't let it get you down.  If you're shooting and getting paid for it, you're winning in my book.  

  Welcome aboard!


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

KmH said:


> Are your clients photographers?



My clients are clients with check books.  I have been in aerial photography as a business for over 4 years and shooting "Cosmetic" type photography.  In other words, shooting buildings such as homes, estates, businesses and such.  Have tried my hand with aerial HDR but haven't been too pleased with my results.  Need more practice in that area.

Photography is a form of art.   And of course, art is in the eye of the beholder.  I understand where all the critics are coming from and I agree will all of them.  After all, the comments are from their perspective and my results differ from theirs.  We need both negative and positive comments.  If we produced photos or anything for that matter, only one way, this would be such a dull place to live.

I found early on, the photographs that I feel are my best are not necessarily what the client always want.  If I process a photo and the client likes it, then I did it right.  If the client does not like the results, then I change the end product to what they want.  Be flexible, and don't be afraid to try something new just because someone out there doesn't like "Halos".

For those out there who would like to make a few $$$ with their photography, HDR photography can open some doors if you're willing to do it.  Good Luck!

Here's another shot with Halos.  Feel free to genuflect if the spirit moves you!


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

Genuflect? Hardly!


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

Halos are definitely seen as a defect by photographers, but it's not at all clear to me that they should be seen as such generally.

If you've ever had a class in drawing, you were probably taught to put halos in on purpose. In photographic terms, it increases acutance, but in drawing class they simply say that it makes the shadow appear darker, or the highlight brighter. Halos are very poppy, and pop sells. Pictures of your aircraft with halos all over the place might well sell well, they're punchy, they look different, and nobody who hasn't been trained by TPF to look specifically for halos is even going to notice them.

It's not "straight photography" but, really, what the hell is these days?


----------



## ffarl (Oct 10, 2013)

I'm gonna like this guy.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2013)

PMorel said:


> For those out there who would like to make a few $$$ with their photography, *TONEMAPPED* photography can open some doors if you're willing to do it.  Good Luck!



I have morals.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

I am not a cartoonist, so I couldn't do this!


----------



## amolitor (Oct 10, 2013)

I think this thread needs a little more insulting bile from people who confuse their personal tastes with universals of quality. Or, really, anyone. Bile is awesome.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

amolitor said:


> *Bile is awesome.*



So go and have a glass (of bile)!! Send me the bill.. I will even buy!


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I am not a cartoonist, so I couldn't do this!



....and your avatar is ?????

Oh, I get it, be creative with HDR or Tonemapped software but don't be overly creative where someone might figure out that you manipulated the photograph.  Is it like telling a lie v/s a white lie? Hmmm

Let's be clear that I really do respect your opinion.  I would like to see some of your work.  I'm sure I could learn from you.

Everyone has a choice of what they want to share ... HDR or iPhone Photo look.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

PMorel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a cartoonist, so I couldn't do this!
> ...



My Avatar is a Porcupine fish shot I took in Mexico.. and* for a comical aspect*, I did saturate it a bit. Are your images meant to be comical? 

My flickr is in my sig.. have fun...

Do you even know the difference between HDR and tone mapping?


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

Braineack said:


> PMorel said:
> 
> 
> > For those out there who would like to make a few $$$ with their photography, *TONEMAPPED* photography can open some doors if you're willing to do it.  Good Luck!
> ...



So much for your morals....that wasn't exactly my quote.  Now was it?  Cmon man, you can do better than that.  Show me some of your work.


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

Are we having fun yet?

I viewed your portfolio and saw your work.  Very impressive.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## play18now (Oct 10, 2013)

I just honestly like the original unprocessed photo you posted about better.  And if you post pictures up here you're going to get comments and you're not going to like all of them.  Tis the way of the forum, however I've found that the critiques I've gotten have made me a better photographer.  No one is going to tell you that you must go and change your style or all your pictures will be bad.  They are saying what they would have done differently.  The "HDR or iPhone photo" quote doesn't impress me though.  I can easily make a photo I took with my iPhone have the halo effect and look a lot like the original photo you posted.  I think my iPhone can even do HDR.


----------



## ffarl (Oct 10, 2013)

I think he's taken the criticism quite well.  It's the sarcasm that he volleyed back over the net.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 10, 2013)

PMorel said:


> Are we having fun yet?
> 
> I viewed your portfolio and saw your work.  Very impressive.  Thanks for sharing.



Thanks!

I like the left handed camera on your website... what is that exactly?


----------



## Tiller (Oct 10, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I have morals.



My morals go out the door when someone waves money in my face.

That didn't sound as bad in my head


----------



## lambertpix (Oct 10, 2013)

I like the extra contrast in the prop, but some of the other bits are just too vivid for me.  The cooling fins on the cylinders, for instance, take on a real moire look in the processed photo.  Were you able to line up a view of this plane with a cleaner background?  I think that might help a bit, too.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 10, 2013)

I prefer the original.  It only needed a little post, the composition is interesting.  Maybe you over cooked it to hide the soft focus?


----------



## PMorel (Oct 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> PMorel said:
> 
> 
> > Are we having fun yet?
> ...



Picked it up at a yard sale.  No box, no documentation....doesn't take pictures very well....actually not at all.  :mrgreen:


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 11, 2013)

These aren't exactly my favorite sort of HDR, but aside from my personal prejudices, I see two ways to improve the image.
1. Reduce the haloing
2. Run it through unsharp mask to reduce some of that HDR softness.  I do unsharp mask on almost all of my HDRs, just because there seems to always be a bit of softness from the process.

Not a terrible image, but it could be made better.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 11, 2013)

You do realize that steps #1 and #2 may be read as 'reduce the halos.. and then put them back'?


----------



## Braineack (Oct 11, 2013)

I like the detail that was pulled out of the cooling fins and wood grain, but it could have been done in a more tasteful way.

...as far as these tonemapped images making money, so did Magic Eye posters in the early 90s.


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 11, 2013)

> My morals go out the door when someone waves money in my face.



If I was selling photos, I'd make whatever kind of photos my customers were willing to buy.    This, possibly, is why I don't sell photos.


----------



## runnah (Oct 11, 2013)

Hey if you are making money more power to you. Not my cup of tea but then again I am not selling photos.

I am however a professional creative person and every day I have to sacrifice my artistic sensibilities to satisfy customers. It doesn't bother me because I find other creative outlets. The other hobbyists may poo-poo your do anything for money attitude but they aren't in a similar position.


----------



## ffarl (Oct 11, 2013)

Perhaps the best definition of a "Professional" is that in an effort to make money, you give up the freedom to only do what it is that you are passionate about.  Sure as hell is true in restaurants/cooking.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 11, 2013)

I feel different about it.  I'd feel like a real pro wouldn't take pictures in order to have clients, but only has clients as a result of taking pictures.

you hire a line cook for his cooking abilities, you hire a chef for his abilities to create interesting and delicious dishes, a menu that jives with your restaurant's theme, and can run the kitchen all while staying within a certain food cost making the business profitable.

of course one needs to pay the bills, that's completely understandable. But I wouldn't hire DanOstergren and ask him to use a flash and saturate his blacks to 255.


----------



## ffarl (Oct 11, 2013)

Having opened several restaurants, I learned a hard lesson with my first.  I wanted to serve high-end, healthy stuff that you could feel good about eating.  After 3 months in business, my choices were clear:  Put a chicken-fried steak and a burger on the menu, or lock the doors.  Having a successful business is always about compromise, but you'll never convince someone of that before they try it on their own.  Your ideals will be guidelines, and if you're lucky they will still show through to those that appreciate them.


----------



## Braineack (Oct 11, 2013)

now im hungry.


----------



## runnah (Oct 11, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I feel different about it.  I'd feel like a real pro wouldn't take pictures in order to have clients, but only has clients as a result of taking pictures.
> 
> you hire a line cook for his cooking abilities, you hire a chef for his abilities to create interesting and delicious dishes, a menu that jives with your restaurant's theme, and can run the kitchen all while staying within a certain food cost making the business profitable.
> 
> of course one needs to pay the bills, that's completely understandable. But I wouldn't hire DanOstergren and ask him to use a flash and saturate his blacks to 255.



You are talking about 1% of the working photographers out there. People like Terry Richardson and Peter Lik can do what the every the hell they want but the rest are stuck with trying to do whatever it takes to make the client happy.

Artistic integrity goes out the window when you have bills and mouths to feed.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 11, 2013)

PMorel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a cartoonist, so I couldn't do this!
> ...



If I wanted a photograph, I'd go for the one on the right
If I wanted a poster on the wall, I'd go for the one on the left.

oops, not showing - the 2 pics from post # 17


----------



## raventepes (Oct 11, 2013)

I really need to agree with ffarl about his conceptions regarding photography and its translation into the food industry. Having been a chef for 16 years, and now operating as a professional photographer, there really are a lot of compromises that must be made in each field in order to survive. Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean the customer doesn't. At the end of the day, as far as selling photography goes, you have to do what the customer wants, even if you, the photographer, don't care for it. Also, you do what they want so that you get the return business. It's all about keeping bills paid and mouths fed. And yes. It IS about making money, and yes, that does often include selling your artistic sense short, but any business out there is set up for one reason. TO MAKE MONEY! I've done quite a few things for clients that I'm not exactly happy with, but it's what they wanted, so hey...bills got paid for a month. Had I not gone with what the customer want and they hated it? Yep. Refund, and bills don't get paid. That's the nature of business. Anyone who assumes they get to keep all their "artistic freedom" when going into business for him or herself are deluding themselves. Yes, the photographer retains a control point, but really, it's "what the client wants, the client gets", and hey. If you don't want to do what the client wants, you don't get to eat or pay your bills till you can wake up, smell the coffee, and shake out those cobwebs of "It's my business, so it's my way". Yeah...stop kidding yourselves and turn off the open sign. Photographers are paid for a service, much like a tattoo artist. How many tattoos do you think any given artist has made, but since it's what the customer wanted, it's what they got? Is someone so naive that they'd think that just because a design sucks that someone wants done, they'd turn that client away? Same difference.


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 11, 2013)

ffarl said:


> I dig it man.  Prepare for a dissertation on over-processing and how your clients don't know what they want because they're not experts like everyone on the forum, but don't let it get you down. * If you're shooting and getting paid for it, you're winning in my book*.



^^^^
THAT...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 11, 2013)

PMorel said:


> My clients are clients with check books.



Right on; that's what matters...



> If I process a photo and the client likes it, then I did it right.  If the client does not like the results, then I change the end product to what they want.



This is something that a lot of people have a difficult time wrapping their heads around. The a working photographer, the opinion which matters most is that of the person signing the check...



> For those out there who would like to make a few $$$ with their photography, HDR photography can open some doors if you're willing to do it.



The last several prints I've sold have been HDR stuff. The ironic part is that I do HDR as a goof, and I don't think my HDR's are all that great. But people buy 'em, though, and that's what matters...


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 11, 2013)

Braineack said:


> PMorel said:
> 
> 
> > For those out there who would like to make a few $$$ with their photography, *TONEMAPPED* photography can open some doors if you're willing to do it.  Good Luck!
> ...



I know I'll regret this, but how is it immoral to engage in HDR or tonemapping?


----------



## jake337 (Oct 12, 2013)

Not my cup of tea but I think it would look much better seen printed out then on a computer screen!


----------



## Braineack (Oct 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > PMorel said:
> ...




It was just a joke.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Braineack said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Don't worry, Braineack... I "GOT" it!


----------



## Steve5D (Oct 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Hey, around here, it's hard to tell without emoticons. Given the level of disdain some show for HDR, it was a fair question...


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



I think a LOT of us like HDR... but many of us Dislike excessive Tone-Mapping!


----------



## EDL (Oct 15, 2013)

I like all kinds of "HDR" from realistic to overcooked depending on the pic.  Generally I like a little overcook on subjects like cars, and airplanes, but these are way too overcooked for my personal taste.

With that said, hey, if the client likes it, go for it.  If you are shooting to make $$$ then you have to provide the client with what they want...it is, after all their taste that you are trying to appease to get their $$$.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 16, 2013)

Holy overdone cartoony HDR, Batman!

Nice composition, but waaaaaaay too heavy handed. Halos aren't a good thing, bro.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 18, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Halos aren't a good thing, bro.



This is given to us as received wisdom, but why aren't they a good thing?


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 18, 2013)

and I have no idea what HDR or tonemapping is .... sooner or later


----------



## dsiglin (Oct 18, 2013)

Halos or no, that's a very sweet airplane.

I'm going to guess the reasons halos are a no-no are 1) it is unnatural 2) it is new. I think it is those two combined that make it unbearable to some. Not saying I'm for or against, just stating why I think people don't like them.

It's is interesting that HDR, which started as a way to regain the dynamic range of film, has taken on a life completely different from it's original purpose. Once the cat is out of the bag...


----------



## Braineack (Oct 18, 2013)

halos to me scream: hey I pushed this button and made the picture look cool!

kinda like how glowing edges were used on almost every picture on AOL hometown sites back in the early 90s when people got their first copy of Photoshop 3 and learn how to publish websites.


----------

