# Manhole Cover HDR



## Womec

Not too over the top, but I think it added some nice texture. 







Bawwomick's Gallery


----------



## D-B-J

hdr was needed?


----------



## Womec

Added more detail to the shadows.


----------



## JBLoudG20

Could you post the the properly exposed original (non HDR) image as well?


----------



## ifi

JBLoudG20 said:


> Could you post the the properly exposed original (non HDR) image as well?


+1


----------



## Womec




----------



## JBLoudG20

This really didn't need HDR processing. Curves and saturation, would have yielded similar results.

Also, I think a shallower DOF would have made it a bit more interesting. Exif shows F10. I would have shot at like f4 or 3.5

Still, the image does nothing for me, composition-ally.


----------



## D-B-J

JBLoudG20 said:


> This really didn't need HDR processing. Curves and saturation, would have yielded similar results.
> 
> Also, I think a shallower DOF would have made it a bit more interesting. Exif shows F10. I would have shot at like f4 or 3.5
> 
> Still, the image does nothing for me, composition-ally.


 
+1


----------



## ifi

Your HDR gave it a more rusty look.


----------



## entity06

hdr is all fine and dandy when used properly but i would like to make a quote from a magazine i once read "HDR - Hide disappointing result"


----------



## Bynx

The HDR version is far better than the flat looking original in my opinion. Much more punch and color. As for a shallower DOF, -- WHAT!!! There are out of focus areas as is. If anything, the f10 should have been f21.
Im beginning to think the HDR forum should be split in two. One for those who dont like HDR, dont use HDR and never will use HDR. The other will be for people who like it and use it.

Entity, how was HDR not used correctly there?


----------



## pbelarge

Womec
Next time do not tell them you did HDR, and they will not know. It will elminate the HDR complaints. 

The only issue I have is the scrap wire  and other construction debris, it is a little distracting.


----------



## manaheim

Bynx said:


> The HDR version is far better than the flat looking original in my opinion. Much more punch and color. As for a shallower DOF, -- WHAT!!! There are out of focus areas as is. If anything, the f10 should have been f21.
> Im beginning to think the HDR forum should be split in two. One for those who dont like HDR, dont use HDR and never will use HDR. The other will be for people who like it and use it.
> 
> Entity, how was HDR not used correctly there?


 
Er, I think what you really need is one for people who do HDR for seemingly no actual reason, and one for those who understand the applications of the technology and use it to yield a particular end result for a particular reason.

No offens to OP, but in this case (as someone else stated) a simple application of curves (or heck, even a bit of contrast and saturation work) would have yielded an almost identical result.  In fact, let's have a go...

Here is their HDR...






And here is my processing of their original with about 10 seconds worth of work.  +100 on contrast, plus a bit of sharpening.






Damned close if you ask me, and I could get it even closer if it mattered.

The point here is people create HDRs frequently as some sort of solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.  People need to learn more about how to adjust their images appropriately to get the effect they were looking for, and apply the HDR methods when they are looking for a greater dynamic range than their camera can offer.

Again, no offense to OP.


----------



## Fedaykin

This is a good example of a properly done HDR image IMO, not too harsh, just enough to get the detail in the shadows. Though I would like to see an example of the original edited with proper curves adjustments, just for comparison's sake.



EDIT: Ahahaha Anaheim read my mind. Excellent example of why HDR isn't necessary in a lot of occasions where it is used just for the sake of using it.


----------



## Bynx

Why does it matter to anyone else but the OP which route was taken to get the final pic? Saying you can do the same thing some other way is fine. But thats not the way the OP chose to do it. Sometimes its just a nice exercise to play with the software to see what happens. Im glad to see manaheim that you did more than just run your mouth off. Your example is just as good as the original HDR. But if he did it your way then it wouldnt be posted here but in some other forum. This is HDR so thats the way it is.


----------



## manaheim

Bynx said:


> Why does it matter to anyone else but the OP which route was taken to get the final pic? Saying you can do the same thing some other way is fine. But thats not the way the OP chose to do it. Sometimes its just a nice exercise to play with the software to see what happens. Im glad to see manaheim that you did more than just run your mouth off. Your example is just as good as the original HDR. But if he did it your way then it wouldnt be posted here but in some other forum. This is HDR so thats the way it is.


 
It only matters if you care to understand how and when to best apply tools.  I mean, I can most certainly hammer a nail in with the butt end of a screwdriver... it'll get the job done... but it's clearly not the best use of that tool, and there are clearly other tools better suited to handle it.

Would it be a "nice excercise"?  Ummm... sure?  I guess?  But in the end, I honestly feel that's mostly just cover for the fact that the people concerned here really didn't know that a hammer existed.

Now no one should have any issue with that... after all, people come here to share and to learn, right?  Right.

The issue I have is when someone says "So they're bashing in nails with a screwdriver!  It's what makes them happy!"  To me, that is just breeding and encouraging ignorance.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling the OP ignorant, but turning your back on the lessons that could be learned here would very much be ignorance.


----------



## ghpham

Bynx said:


> Why does it matter to anyone else but the OP which route was taken to get the final pic? Saying you can do the same thing some other way is fine. But thats not the way the OP chose to do it. Sometimes its just a nice exercise to play with the software to see what happens. Im glad to see manaheim that you did more than just run your mouth off. Your example is just as good as the original HDR. But if he did it your way then it wouldnt be posted here but in some other forum. This is HDR so thats the way it is.


 
The point is this picture need not to be in the HDR forum.  You don't need to take multiple shots to achieve the same result.  I don't believe many people who use HDR even know what it is and what it's for.  Newbies galore uses the technique for something else altogether and call it HDR when it is not.  Cartoon looking pictures are not true HDR.  Call it any form of art BUT HDR!


----------



## Fedaykin

manaheim said:


> The issue I have is when someone says "So they're bashing in nails with a screwdriver!  It's what makes them happy!"  To me, that is just breeding and encouraging ignorance.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not calling the OP ignorant, but turning your back on the lessons that could be learned here would very much be ignorance.



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Bynx

manaheim said:


> It only matters if you care to understand how and when to best apply tools.  I mean, I can most certainly hammer a nail in with the butt end of a screwdriver... it'll get the job done... but it's clearly not the best use of that tool, and there are clearly other tools better suited to handle it.
> 
> Would it be a "nice excercise"?  Ummm... sure?  I guess?  But in the end, I honestly feel that's mostly just cover for the fact that the people concerned here really didn't know that a hammer existed.
> 
> Now no one should have any issue with that... after all, people come here to share and to learn, right?  Right.
> 
> The issue I have is when someone says "So they're bashing in nails with a screwdriver!  It's what makes them happy!"  To me, that is just breeding and encouraging ignorance.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not calling the OP ignorant, but turning your back on the lessons that could be learned here would very much be ignorance.



You make some interesting points here. I wish the OP would step in here and clear things up. As for the right tool. Well who decides what the right tool is? HDR is probably overkill compared to a bit of tweaking in Photoshop but so what? Photomatix is a new program to many and using it more and more will give the OP more experience on using it properly. And learning to use a tool is not being ignorant. Bashing someone for using a tool is what breeds and encourages ignorance. 
As for the reason people come here, I think many come not to share and learn but to put down the efforts of others who are learning. For some reason many people are very negative about the use of HDR. Thats fine, but those same people hang around the forum just putting down many of the examples posted. Whether they are good bad or indifferent. This post is a good example. The original post is quite good and looks great on my monitor. New Mac and New Monitor and its set up perfectly. The colors and texture of the grate are almost 3D in quality. Many times better than the original pic. While the subject isnt exactly a wall hanger it does show that HDR can be used for anything if the OP is so inclined. And if thats the route he/she chooses then suggesting another route is a bit arrogant to me. I use Photoshop all the time and know its power, but many either cant afford it or are intimidated not to use it. And one important thing to keep in mind. This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.


----------



## ghpham

Bynx said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only matters if you care to understand how and when to best apply tools. I mean, I can most certainly hammer a nail in with the butt end of a screwdriver... it'll get the job done... but it's clearly not the best use of that tool, and there are clearly other tools better suited to handle it.
> 
> Would it be a "nice excercise"? Ummm... sure? I guess? But in the end, I honestly feel that's mostly just cover for the fact that the people concerned here really didn't know that a hammer existed.
> 
> Now no one should have any issue with that... after all, people come here to share and to learn, right? Right.
> 
> The issue I have is when someone says "So they're bashing in nails with a screwdriver! It's what makes them happy!" To me, that is just breeding and encouraging ignorance.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not calling the OP ignorant, but turning your back on the lessons that could be learned here would very much be ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make some interesting points here. I wish the OP would step in here and clear things up. As for the right tool. Well who decides what the right tool is? HDR is probably overkill compared to a bit of tweaking in Photoshop but so what? Photomatix is a new program to many and using it more and more will give the OP more experience on using it properly. And learning to use a tool is not being ignorant. Bashing someone for using a tool is what breeds and encourages ignorance.
> As for the reason people come here, I think many come not to share and learn but to put down the efforts of others who are learning. For some reason many people are very negative about the use of HDR. Thats fine, but those same people hang around the forum just putting down many of the examples posted. Whether they are good bad or indifferent. This post is a good example. The original post is quite good and looks great on my monitor. New Mac and New Monitor and its set up perfectly. The colors and texture of the grate are almost 3D in quality. Many times better than the original pic. While the subject isnt exactly a wall hanger it does show that HDR can be used for anything if the OP is so inclined. And if thats the route he/she chooses then suggesting another route is a bit arrogant to me. I use Photoshop all the time and know its power, but many either cant afford it or are intimidated not to use it. And one important thing to keep in mind. This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.
Click to expand...

 

How about defining what HDR is? If you want to use the tool properly, than you need to understand what the theory behind it is.  You keep saying that this is the HDR forum, but so many posted on here just aren't HDR photos.

Being stubborn and refusing to learn breeds more ignorance than anything else.


----------



## Bynx

ghpham, I looked back a few months and dont see any HDR posts from you. Or any from manheim for that matter. What is it you are offering here? Some HDR experience? The photo posted by the OP is HDR. If you see photos posted which arent HDR then take up your problem with them. Im as opposed to bad HDR use as anyone. Ive said enough about the negativity by people that dont do HDR and encourage others to not do it too so this is my last post in this OPs thread.


----------



## ghpham

Bynx said:


> ghpham, I looked back a few months and dont see any HDR posts from you. What is it you are offering here? Some HDR experience?


 
So I have to post an HDR photo in order to know what it's suppose to be for?  If you look at the other forums, you will see that I have no photo posted as well.  Does that means I don't know enough to criticize?

Manaheim illustrated it well by showing that this photo does not need HDR, and I'm just saying the same thing albeit perhaps more in a blunt way.


----------



## Fedaykin

Bynx said:


> ghpham, I looked back a few months and dont see any HDR posts from you. Or any from manheim for that matter. What is it you are offering here? Some HDR experience? The photo posted by the OP is HDR. If you see photos posted which arent HDR then take up your problem with them. Im as opposed to bad HDR use as anyone. Ive said enough about the negativity by people that dont do HDR and encourage others to not do it too so this is my last post in this OPs thread.



Classic "Why don't you show us yours?!" argument. In other words, an inane and useless one, an example of one's work or even any work is needed in order know what is good and what is not, what is done right and what is not, etc.


----------



## Bynx

Fedaykin said:


> Classic "Why don't you show us yours?!" argument. In other words, an inane and useless one, an example of one's work or even any work is needed in order know what is good and what is not, what is done right and what is not, etc.



Ya I think if you havent posted anything to be criticized then when it comes to criticizing others you should keep your comments to yourself and move on. And who makes you the expert on whats good or not? Being a putz doesnt make you qualified.


----------



## ghpham

Bynx said:


> Fedaykin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic "Why don't you show us yours?!" argument. In other words, an inane and useless one, an example of one's work or even any work is needed in order know what is good and what is not, what is done right and what is not, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya I think if you havent posted anything to be criticized then when it comes to criticizing others you should keep your comments to yourself and move on. And who makes you the expert on whats good or not? Being a putz doesnt make you qualified.
Click to expand...

 
What a load of BS.  So one HAVE to post a photo in order to be able to critique?? Why post a photo if you can't take the criticism? You still have not answer the question what a true HDR is.  Way to be evasive :er:

My point is still valid.


----------



## Fedaykin

Bynx said:


> Fedaykin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Classic "Why don't you show us yours?!" argument. In other words, an inane and useless one, an example of one's work or even any work is needed in order know what is good and what is not, what is done right and what is not, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya I think if you havent posted anything to be criticized then when it comes to criticizing others you should keep your comments to yourself and move on. And who makes you the expert on whats good or not? Being a putz doesnt make you qualified.
Click to expand...


Again with that pathetic argument, I just replied to it in the other thread. Frankly, I find it sad that I have to listen to such erroneous argumentation from a grown man. If you can't take honest criticism that isn't sugar coated like 95% of the rest that is given online, then you shouldn't be on the internet.


----------



## Arch

Guys pipe down.... you may not agree with Bynx, but lets keep it civil.


----------



## manaheim

Bynx said:


> You make some interesting points here. I wish the OP would step in here and clear things up. As for the right tool. Well who decides what the right tool is? HDR is probably overkill compared to a bit of tweaking in Photoshop but so what?


 
If you went to an automotive forum and posted about how you managed to figure out how to move 300 cubic yards of bark mulch using a Volkswagen Golf when you happened to have a perfectly operational pickup truck sitting in your driveway, everyone would say you were using the wrong tool for the job... and that would be a very accurate statement.

I think this forum has a lot of folks who spend an awful lot of time defending their choices (or other's choices) as artistic or simply a matter of preference, when in reality what we're doing is defending choices that really come from a lack of skills or experience.  I'm not saying this to poke fun at the OP, I'm saying this to point out to you... Bynx... that you are doing these people a disservice by doing so.

Rather than giving them a helping hand and explaining "how while X or Y may be an interesting effect, and oh yes isn't HDR a cool thing, but did you know you could get the same effect from doing Z... now however if you had Q kind of situation an HDR would make total sense here, maybe you should try that to see what you get?"... you pat them on the back and say "ATTA BOY!"  This is a crime in my eyes.

Who decides what the right tool is?  Experts.  That's who.  Can people find new and exciting ways to use the tool?  Sure.  Should the experts be challenged?  Absolutely.  I'd say the surreal-effect HDR people are good examples of this.  I don't personally _love_ that effect... but HDR is CLEARLY the best tool for that particular job.  HDR is _NOT, _however, the best tool for a contrast adjustment, and I think I demonstrated that quite clearly.



Bynx said:


> Photomatix is a new program to many and using it more and more will give the OP more experience on using it properly. And learning to use a tool is not being ignorant. Bashing someone for using a tool is what breeds and encourages ignorance.


 
I'm not bashing anyone and I've made that abundantly clear.  I'm being firm and direct on a tough point, and I think you know that.

If I see someone I know banging in a screw with a hammer, I would respectfully and gently correct them and explain how to do it better.  Turning and ignoring it would be doing a disservice to my friend.  I'm doing no less here.



Bynx said:


> As for the reason people come here, I think many come not to share and learn but to put down the efforts of others who are learning. For some reason many people are very negative about the use of HDR. Thats fine, but those same people hang around the forum just putting down many of the examples posted. Whether they are good bad or indifferent. This post is a good example.


 
Oh stop.  It's not even close to that.  You're giving someone an attaboy and you're tweaked because I've jumped in and said "err... not the best application".  How dare I? 

Look, Bynx, I'll be honest with you... I've seen your posts on here a lot. You like HDRs.  I get that.  However, I would challenge you to look in the mirror and think carefully about this.  Ever see anyone with hammer syndrome?  When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail?



Bynx said:


> The original post is quite good and looks great on my monitor. New Mac and New Monitor and its set up perfectly. The colors and texture of the grate are almost 3D in quality. Many times better than the original pic. While the subject isnt exactly a wall hanger it does show that HDR can be used for anything if the OP is so inclined. And if thats the route he/she chooses then suggesting another route is a bit arrogant to me.


 
Wait... suggesting another route is arrogance?  So, if there are multiple ways to get to the same path... and in some cases potentially some shorter ways... telling the person about them is arrogant?  

Did you look at my post?  I did exactly what the OP did in 10 seconds and didn't use a $100 tool to get it done.  That's not being arrogant.  That's educational.



Bynx said:


> I use Photoshop all the time and know its power, but many either cant afford it or are intimidated not to use it. And one important thing to keep in mind. This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.


 
The membership drives how the forum is used.  I've been here a long time and that's been the mantra.  I'm a user just like you.  I would propose that the point of an HDR Forum is not only to share what you've done but to understand the best and most effective applications of this very cool tool.  This is, however, within the larger context of a photography forum (which this is) and therefore falling back to the master category of "Photography" (check the forum structure!), it is a PERFECTLY appropriate thing to do.

That's a technical argument, but here's another one...

If a forum is exclusively about encouraging the use of a tool, and not discouraging people from using a tool improperly, well... suddenly people on forestry forums will be cutting their grass with chainsaws and cutlery forums will be turning out their lights with steak knives.  I don't even want to think what will be happening on the hunting forums. 

Oh and to your point about "show me yours"...

Bynx, I have posted several HDRs here but usually in other people's threads as examples.  (you know... teaching... helping... my crazy bizarre concepts in action again.)  You have probably seen these but don't remember attributing them to me.

==1==






Note that HDR was used (and was necessary) here to correct for the problem of either overexposure of the exterior or underexposure of the interior. 

In other words, to get this effect you NEED to use HDR.  Therefore a pretty sensible application of the tool.

==2==





I chose to make this an HDR because a standard single exposure could not possibly capture the depth of tones of browns and rich warm feeling of the room.  Even this image still doesn't capture it completely, but it comes close.  As an added bonus, it allowed me to keep the ceiling skylight from blowing out.

Again, an appropriate application of the tool.


By the way, to everyone else... please do keep it civil.  The conversation with Bynx is a long time in coming, IMO, and I would prefer to keep it open and flowing.

Also, to those of you who have an issue with "whether or not this is an HDR"... the term HDR is overused and somewhat silly.  HIGH as in HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR) is a completely _relative_ term.  No one can say that _any_ image isn't high dynamic range because there is no analog measure of what high or low is.  It's not worth debating.  People may or may not be able to achieve the same results without resorting to photomatix but none of us can really say something is or isn't an HDR.  Not really.


----------



## Bynx

Youre right. I do recognize those pics and didnt attribute them to you. I thought they were good then as I do now and probably said so. 
Why is the conversation with Bynx long time coming? I dont spend much time in this site and only visit the HDR forum since thats what Im mainly interested in at the moment. My only beef here is with people who say they dont like the post. They dont offer a suggestion of which slider to move or how to improve the part or parts they dont like. Now I find those same people dont even post pics of their own just come and criticize. 
I will be the first to admit I use a hammer to drive in a screw. I will use a shotgun to kill an ant if I have to. I use whatever means I have available to get the results Im after. Because I use a shotgun today doesnt mean thats the only tool I have. Tomorrow I might use a pea shooter. Im sure its the same with the OP of this thread which we have taken over and for which I apologize sincerely. For the most part I see the posts here as simply exercises. Few are wall hanging material but the techiques learned will one day have the wall full. While I might consider one method overkill I wouldnt be presumtuous enough or even care enough to point out a simpler way to do the same thing. If something is getting learned then thats good enough for me. I certainly dont pat every poster on the back. Especially if what he has posted is crap. I just move on. There are enough people lined up to say how much they dont like things. They dont need another voice. But I will speak up when I see what I consider an interesting photo being shot down for no particular reason by some ignorant putz who probably doesnt even have a kind word to say about his grandmother. The bridge posts in the water post I find very nice to look at. The rusty manhole cover while not as interesting as a subject is an interesting example of using HDR. Overkill, yes, but nice to see it in use. How about we just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I said before you posted those two examples of yours that at least you put a picture where your mouth was. More than the others have done.


----------



## Provo

Bynx said:


> This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.


 
I so agree with you here, but the problem is that sometimes people just can't help themselves to be nothing but annoying kind of like a tick. 

But the best moments here come from the ones who like to critique everyone else work but when they post their own workings they often fall short of the same people they were giving input in the first place. Not saying in this post but in general. LOL it's almost as if they compliment the other people's work when they post their own I love this place.


----------



## Fedaykin

Provo said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the HDR forum. Not the HOW TO DO IT ANY OTHER WAY forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I so agree with you here, but the problem is that sometimes people just can't help themselves to be nothing but annoying kind of like a tick.
> 
> But the best moments here come from the ones who like to critique everyone else work but when they post their own workings they often fall short of the same people they were giving input in the first place. Not saying in this post but in general. LOL it's almost as if they compliment the other people's work when they post their own I love this place.
Click to expand...


Again, why does one's abilities have any bearing on one's understanding of what is good or not. I've never said my pictures are better. If I post a picture and everyone says it's crap(and that has happened) I concede the point. Heck most of the time if I know it's crap I"ll express so myself in the post. 

But yes, let's agree to disagree, as you some of you seem incapable of accepting any negative criticism, or understanding its merit; you simply choose to employ inane arguments and insinuations. Sorry for derailing your thread OP.


----------



## photo28

Bynx said:


> ghpham, I looked back a few months and dont see any HDR posts from you. Or any from manheim for that matter. What is it you are offering here? Some HDR experience? The photo posted by the OP is HDR. If you see photos posted which arent HDR then take up your problem with them. Im as opposed to bad HDR use as anyone. Ive said enough about the negativity by people that dont do HDR and encourage others to not do it too so this is my last post in this OPs thread.



total fail.


----------



## Hugo Leung

I'm supportive of you using HDR in this case.  The lighting feels more... solid with HDR.  I've been noticing this on a lot of my own HDR photos, where there are a lot of subtle lighting and saturation changes that are difficult to emulate with curves.


----------



## Bynx

Well Hugo understands. Dont you wish everybody did?


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Manaheim is still obsessed with HDR being done HIS way... Maybe his first name is Frank. 

Sorry Man of Heim, but if you hate those shots so much why do you keep commenting on them? And why does someone who claims to want and become more artsy so stuck on the "correct" way of doing things?

Should we look at your photos and hammer you over the head about every little stupid artsy thing you do? You're going to be bloody pulp very soon.

I don't disagree with you that HDR was not necessary here but so what? You are not a god of photography. Get over yourself. And, no, I don't think I'm a god of photography either but I'm a bit more lenient than you are. Probably because my first shown photos were ten times worse, technically speaking, than this kind of mild HDR.

In art, there is no rule. Get over it.


----------



## manaheim

Ohhhhhhhhh my god, people.

I didn't say he did it _wrong_... not even _close_.

I merely said that he could have accomplished the same result using different and simpler tools.

I pretty much stopped commenting further when bynx said he likes blowing up ants with a shotgun because, really, if that's what you wanna do... hey... go nuts.  Seems like overkill to me, but whatever floats your boat.

I find it extremely comical that the people that spend so much time complaining that people are "all here to be all negative and stuff" just automatically assume that anyone providing a counter-point or a different approach is somehow attacking them or their artistic choices.

Seeeeeeeeriously need to get the chip off your shoulders.


----------



## JBLoudG20

The comments made in this thread have driven me to participate elsewhere.


----------



## Hugo Leung

No, manaheim, you dont get it.  You cant accomplish the *same *results, only very similar ones with curves.  His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.


----------



## manaheim

Hugo Leung said:


> No, manaheim, you dont get it. You cant accomplish the *same *results, only very similar ones with curves. His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.


 
Thank you, Hugo, for your excellent demonstration of a failed logical construct in action.

[para] "Because you didn't, you cannot."

Just because I didn't accomplish the _exact_ same results, doesn't mean I _can't_, Hugo.  My point was to show how close I could get in so short a time using the most basic tools.  The _logical_ thing is to interpolate that with just slightly additional work that you can achieve the same result.

And _again_... the point here is not that using HDR is _wrong_... the point that it is overkill _if your desired end result_ is the image we have seen in this thread.

If your desired end result happens to be_ playing with HDR_, then, well... mission accomplished!  What-_ever_.

*shakes head*

This has all become extremely silly. 

I'm so done with this foolishness.

I'll go away now so you guys can cut your lawns with chainsaws in the name of artistic license.

Have fun!


----------



## Bynx

Manaheim, dont let the door hit your @33 on the way out. No place for arrogance or stupidity here.


----------



## Arch

Guys please, i think we can all agree that there will always be 2 sides of the fence when presented with a HDR or pseudo HDR image.

As i have expressed before, it is not really the image itself that causes the problem, but the personal response from the viewer. If the image can 'connect' with you on any level then it may be pleasing to you, but possibly in a way which doesn't speak to others.

For example, as we saw in another recent thread which showed an image of a wooden walkway with water beneath, an image like this would work better for me as a natural photograph, as what i look for in an image like this is a personal interpretation which provokes my response. On this occasion natural light on wood provokes the feeling of summer days/evenings living by the coast. The HDR treatment took that away for me.
Alternatively, for someone who enjoys looking at patterns and textures, the image may be a complete success.
Its the old, eye of the beholder argument.


In this example the image *can* be created without using the HDR process, so the 2 sides of the fence are created again, but not for the same reasons as the above mentioned image.
The problem i think we have here is the some believe that the OP would benefit from learning the faster and more basic way of achieving this result. Others believe that the HDR process can be used for the same purpose, which of course, it can.

Neither way of thinking is wrong, let me make that clear.
The trouble, as i see it, is that people want newbies to learn things the right way.. and HDR is no exception.
The basic rule for understanding the original purpose for HDR is know why it was created... which also answers the same question, what was it for?

The most easy to understand answer to this question is to picture a church interior. The dynamic range of the available inside light, compared to the light bursting through the stain glass windows creates an impossible range to capture in one image. This type of situation is the best use for HDR.

However, as with many forms of technology and software, new ways of using it become mainstream.
On a forum this size, it just has to be accepted that other ways to use HDR software will become a weekly occurrence.

My personal advice to anyone wanting to start using HDR techniques is to try and learn as much about photography and basic editing techniques first. This includes the use of equipment, like an ND grad for landscapes for example. It is only then that you will question your need to use more time consuming methods. 
I am aware though that people certainly can get lucky and make very nice images using Photomatix with very little knowledge of editing programmes.

In short, you can either see something which provokes a response in these images shapes/patterns, or the images become lifeless.
Both can be argued until the cows come home, but neither will come out on top. Another sign of the times.


----------



## Bynx

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say Arch. But this is the HDR thread. People should expect to see anything and everything done by one method or another to create an HDR image. Or even images which arent true HDR but attempt to replicate it in detail and or colors. Constructive criticism is always welcome and encouraged. But just saying "I dont like it" isnt helpful. And even worse is when someone says not to do it that way, do it my way. Whether its easier or not sometimes its just fun to try something new. So someone spends an hour or more on a pic that could have been done in 10 minutes some other way, so what. Whose time was wasted? And saving time isnt the point of this thread. Its to show the results of the time spent.


----------



## Arch

I do agree with you that the image should be taken for what it is and appreciated or criticized despite what technique was used to create it. However i also think that from the OP's perpective it would also be useful to be shown how else a similar result can be made. It is after all, a learning environment as well as a show gallery.
As for people who just say, 'i don't like it' or give a similar but equally unhelpful response, its something this whole forum could do without!


----------



## Bynx

While Womec might appreciate being shown another way of doing something, personally, I dont know Womec's skill level and wouldnt presume to suggest a different way. I find HDR fun to do and the best thing to come along to me since I left 35mm photography a number of years ago. It irks me when someone comes into the HDR forum and says dont do HDR, here is an easier way. I didnt see anyone ask for an easier way. So any comments should have been made on the results of the post and not on how it was done. Perhaps suggest another way if wanted. But Ive seen too many posts by people who dont have a true grasp of HDR suggesting to not go that route. Now if I was the only one using HDR that would be ok with me then maybe after a hundred years people would call it the Bynx style. But its not going away and is more popular each day. One day cameras will have an HDR setting and all the work will be done in camera. But for now Photomatix and a couple other software will do just fine. Often with Photoshop as a tweaker.


----------



## bigtwinky

This forum is all about discovering options and different ways to do things.  You can take the advice given and try it, or you can stick with your way of doing things.

I assume anyone posting something is not only asking for artistic impressions and comments on the image they posted, but also on the process they used to get the image, the settings they used in camera to capture the image and the thought process they had prior to hitting the shutter.

I often see people take someone's image (when allowed) and actually manipulate it in different ways in post processing to get either a different effect, or make a dirty image cleaner.  Sometimes using various softwares or techniques that are not known to the original poster.

No one knows everything.  But when a community comes together to put its collective knowledge in the same pool, its a great resource of information and learning for everyone.  Its up to the individual to do what they want with it, but putting the info out there is the first step.

If one choses not to presume knowing someone's skill level (no one here knows anyone else's true skill level - we are on the interwebz) and thus doesn't want to offend by suggesting something new, that is fine.  I totally think the opposite.  If I don't know someone's skill level, instead of not saying anything, I prefer to put out the limited info I know and let the posters take it for what it is.  If they know it and I post it, no harm no foul and other people might read and benefit.  If they don't know it and I don't post it, then no one ends benefiting from being in an online community like this.

Meh, just my 2 cents on this wonderous thread.


----------



## manaheim

Wow.  Nicely said, Arch.  I enjoyed reading your comments and appreciate you taking the time.

*goes back to lurking*


----------



## Womec

Thanks for the feedback especially the bit from pbelarge about the debris should have paid more attention to it and removed it. 

Sry my piece created so much controversy and argument, but hey a lot of good art does, and its a sign I'm doing something right. 

As for HDR versus single exposure, I liken it to driving an automatic or manual. With HDR you have a ton more control over individual parts of an image because you have access to multiple exposures therefore you can tweak the image to a greater extent without it looking too processed like it would if you did the same level of tweaking with a regular image. Although I do appreciate the simplicity of taking a single shot and thats that its done. I take photos both ways, usually where I can and if there are extremes like really dark or really light I like to have multiple exposures because they can come in handy. 

And the whole thing about "tools" it seems to me that HDR is more of a procedure than a tool, without experimenting with different methods how am I supposed to learn anything or discover anything new. My personal preference however leans largely towards a more subtle HDR than one that fries the photo to a saturated crisp unless of course thats what your going for.


----------



## Womec

Hugo Leung said:


> No, manaheim, you dont get it.  You cant accomplish the *same *results, only very similar ones with curves.  His HDR photo is more interesting than your curve adjusted photo.



I agree without multiple exposures it looks flat and boring. 

Also I do indeed understand what HDR was meant for, but I don't want to do the same boring stuff everyone else is doing. I'd much rather experiment and create something new and interesting.


----------



## Garbz

Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?


----------



## Provo

This topic is the one that keeps on going I think it's time we all moved on we all took part in this and took over the op's thread. Not trying to get on anyone's nerve here but let's just let it be fellas come on post some images and let's keep it somewhat in order.


----------



## Womec

Garbz said:


> Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?



There en lies the controversy, but you still have more control regardless of whether or not your dynamic range fits into one exposure or not.

To answer that more simply... You can pick and choose the best part of the overall image from each exposure to create an overall better image, sometimes this is pointless but sometimes it is not even if the entire dynamic range fits into one exposure. And yes for the millionth time I know you can go about this probably a million different ways.


----------



## manaheim

Womec said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There en lies the controversy, but you still have more control regardless of whether or not your dynamic range fits into one exposure or not.
Click to expand...


It really isn't a controversy, and I don't say this to be inflammatory...  Your assertion here is simply incorrect.


----------



## Fedaykin

This won't end....


----------



## Hugo Leung

Garbz said:


> Wow. ... You simply don't know how it works do you? What's the point of having more than one exposure if your entire dynamic range fits into one exposure?




There is more to HDR than just expanding dynamic range.  It also fills out shadows and dulls highlights.  With badly done HDR, this leads to a compressed contrast and ugly images.  But if done properly, it *might lead to images that would take less time to create with HDR than with curves.* 

Let me illustrate this with an example:












The bottom one is HDR, and the top is a properly exposed original.  Notice the subtle differences in the lighting of the clouds and the buildings.  I dont want to mess around in photoshop with masks to accomplish the same effect.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ I suppose putting that top one into photoshop and tweaking brightness, contrast and putting maybe 2-5 points on saturation into it and reposting it would be largely pointless...

There is almost NO difference there.

HDR=high dynamic range

YES... the point of it is _in fact_ to expand dynamic range.  You can do this to crazy extremes if you like... or you can do what most people call HDR but is really just tone-mapping... but all you did is tweak some very basic settings in a much less basic method.


----------



## bigtwinky

Provo said:


> This topic is the one that keeps on going I think it's time we all moved on we all took part in this and took over the op's thread. Not trying to get on anyone's nerve here but let's just let it be fellas come on post some images and let's keep it somewhat in order.


 
As long as people keep it civil and there is no childish name calling and sarcasm, no real reason to stop a thread.  While they may sometimes start to take a turn for the worse, they can straighten up and actually come out with some interesting information


----------



## Hugo Leung

> all you did is tweak some very basic settings in a much less basic method.



The idea that HDR is a non-basic method is myopic and limiting.  I worry that putting this technique on a pedestal will do nothing to help those learning its pros and cons.  

I chose HDR for this photo because it was *faster and easier*.  Like you said, you couldnt be bothered to put it into photoshop.  The top HDR photo i posted took 20 seconds of post processing.  I ran it through photomatix with previous settings, and adjusted curves in lightroom.  This is all. 

HDR does not need to be an advanced time consuming technique and to present it as such is disingenuous to those new to it.


----------



## myshkin

We should start a new section called tonemapped instead of HDR so no one can say anything. The point is do you like your image more after running through HDR software. Thats all that matters


----------



## Garbz

I was just about to say. Tonemapping and HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging are two completely different aspects. One is nothing more than an method of determining the luminance of a point based on the weighted luminance of surrounding points (tonemapping), and the other is a method of creating an image which has a dynamic range which is too wide for any single sensor to capture.

Both your example Hugo and the OP's are examples of simply using tonemapping. This has nothing to do with HDR, and does not require more than one image. In the case of the OP it doesn't even require creating 3 seperate tweeks of a RAW. 

By all means use tonemapping it's a valid way of creating a sensation of micro-contrast around an otherwise dull image. But let's call a spade a spade and not call it an elephant shall we. Simply opening an image in Photomatix and saving it again does not make it a HDR image.


----------



## manaheim

^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.


----------



## ghpham

Garbz said:


> I was just about to say. Tonemapping and HDR (High Dynamic Range) imaging are two completely different aspects. One is nothing more than an method of determining the luminance of a point based on the weighted luminance of surrounding points (tonemapping), and the other is a method of creating an image which has a dynamic range which is too wide for any single sensor to capture.
> 
> Both your example Hugo and the OP's are examples of simply using tonemapping. This has nothing to do with HDR, and does not require more than one image. In the case of the OP it doesn't even require creating 3 seperate tweeks of a RAW.
> 
> By all means use tonemapping it's a valid way of creating a sensation of micro-contrast around an otherwise dull image. But let's call a spade a spade and not call it an elephant shall we. Simply opening an image in Photomatix and saving it again does not make it a HDR image.


 
Tonemapping is nothing but a watered down version of HDR.  It is so because there is no HDR screen displays availabel that any of us can afford to see the true range.  Tweaking an image to give a fantasy like picture is not really the purpose of tonemapping or HDR.  One can use it to create a new "style" but I would preferred it not called...HDR.


----------



## myshkin

For all the purists in this thread. Next time you do an HDR, once you finish save your settings where they are(photomatix does this for me automatically but I'm sure you can save them in other programs). Then run your 0 exposure through the software with the same settings you left it from your HDR. I think you all will be saddened by how similar they are


----------



## Arch

myshkin said:


> I think you all will be saddened by how similar they are



Nope, at least not for me... as people have said here, its not the technique but the subject that is the issue. If you make a HDR image from a photo without a large dynamic range, then the results can look similar to a tonemapped one.... however the HDR image i would be putting into photomatix would need multipul exposures. That is the purpose of programmes like Photomatix for me.

Tbh, im starting to find explaining HDR to be a little like counting grains of sand, a bit pointless, and every now and then i have to start over again.


----------



## myshkin

Just try it.

And I dont need you explaining anything. I understand what HDR is.


----------



## Arch

I cant try it... thats kinda my point. I would use at least 5-6 exposures for a scene which _cannot_ be captured in one image, to make a HDRI. This is why tonemapping one image won't produce the same results, it won't have the same information (the highlights and the shadows) to create it.
However you *can* create similar results if the subject matter *doesn't have a large dynamic range to begin with.*

I dont want to sound like a jackass here so i will leave it at that, but this is what i mean about having to explain HDR over again, people just dont understand even though they say they do.


----------



## myshkin

the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR. 
The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.


----------



## Arch

yea, i understand everything about the software believe me... what im saying is you cannot get enough information from one RAW file to cover the range of 6+ exposures,... you can only do this if the range of the scene isn't very large in the first place and is capturable in one file.

Ok, to make this is easy as possible to explain:

-You CAN capture a landscape shot with 1 exposure, and then make a psudo HDR, which _can_ look similar to a real multi exposure HDR.

-You CANNOT capture the inside of a church with 1 exposure and make a psudo HDR which looks similar to a real multi exposure HDR. The range is far too great.

This is why i said, for me, it wouldn't be possible to use 1 exposure as i am ONLY interested in using photomatix to *extend* my dynamic range.

I hope i wrote that clear enough. =/


----------



## KmH

myshkin said:


> the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
> The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.


Would you be so kind to post an example(s)? I'm afraid you've got me confused.


----------



## manaheim

Arch, you are a very very patient soul.



myshkin said:


> the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
> The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.



The most you're going to get out of a single raw is maybe 2-4 "stops" of variance.  And that is ASSUMING you are using RAW... and it's not clear to me from what you are saying that you are.  If you are NOT, then the software is essentially guessing at what the variances might be and doing very _very _bad things in the process.

As I think you've seen suggested a number of times in this thread, people often take 5 or so exposures at a difference of 2-3 stops per exposure.  That gives you closer to 14-19 stops of potential variance, which is SIGNIFICANTLY more information than you will get from any single shot... RAW or otherwise.

Really, honestly... what is going on in this thread is this...

Some folks have really dug into this whole HDR thing and learned a lot about it.  They're excited about the methods and really understand what HDR and tonemapping can do for you, why they are different, etc.

There is another group here who really have only barely scratched the surface on HDR methodologies and are strutting their stuff and shouting the other group down.

The _problem _is that the second group will read this and think they are actually in the _first _group.


I'm not suggesting the first group knows all, btw... but I'm telling you flat-out that a lot of you on this thread are _really _misinformed and should spend a little more time listening and a little less time lecturing.  Your facts are way off.


----------



## myshkin

All I asked for people to do experiments and everyone gets their panties in a wad. Its a simple experiment which all new people to HDR should do. It lets you learn what works and what doesn't, and when you need multiple exp. 
I see the opposite in this thread as you. I see one side saying have fun and another acting like snobs. You learn through experimenting and practice. We all can look up wiki and read the technical aspects behind HDR.

Maybe Arch is right and pseudo doesn't work as good indoor. I honestly shoot outdoor most the time, but to tell people not to try HDR on all types of images and on single file HDR is silly and plain wrong. Learn through practice, you will find what type of pictures you like this method for and what doesn't work for you. Don't let people tell you what image it should be applied to


----------



## c.cloudwalker

manaheim said:


> ^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.



Isn't that the nature of the audience in, like, 99% of those HDR threads?

I realize that my last post did not sound very gentle towards you but it wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to say you made your point long ago, some people will never get it, and it's not worth your time. Stop complaining about HDR and move on to other more worthwhile photos.

Cheers.


----------



## Bynx

c.cloudwalker said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ I was kind of avoiding even opening that particular can of worms given the nature of the audience, but you're absolutely right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the nature of the audience in, like, 99% of those HDR threads?
> 
> I realize that my last post did not sound very gentle towards you but it wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to say you made your point long ago, some people will never get it, and it's not worth your time. Stop complaining about HDR and move on to other more worthwhile photos.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


Bless you my son, AMEN. Now pass the wine.


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Bynx said:


> Bless you my son, AMEN. Now pass the wine.



Sorry. I'm on a vodka drip...


----------



## usayit

manaheim said:


> Arch, you are a very very patient soul.



I'm just waiting to see Arch rip that diaper off and go ape on someone.


----------



## bigtwinky

I'm enjoyingg watching the cheerleaders


----------



## Scatterbrained

myshkin said:


> the software will make different exposures for you. Of course its not hitting the sensor like bracketing will, but all bracketing is doing is changing ev level. The samething the software will do. Im not talking just tonemapping an image but letting it make a pseudo HDR.
> The bracket will pickup more but the difference is small and sometimes difficult to see the difference.


This photo is physically impossible with a digital camera from one exposure. . . 
2pm no clouds bright sun in the desert, white sandstone cliff, cave with carbon buildup from fires on ceiling. . . . 






To get the interior correctly exposed you would have to blow out the sky and the cliffs, just bumping the exposure up a few stops in LR doesn't bring out the detail.  
  Ultimately if you feel you can get the detail back by bumping the exposure than you can likely also get it by adding fill light in LR or whatever other program you are using.  If the detail is in the original image there is no need to make multiple images to bring it out.


----------



## myshkin

Raw would of course be much more workable











Also keep in mind not everyone travels with a tripod or there's moving people or animals in a shot and single exposure is the best you get


----------



## Scatterbrained

That was from a RAW image, and I have hand held triple exposure HDR images as well.


----------



## manaheim

myshkin said:


> Raw would of course be much more workable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also keep in mind not everyone travels with a tripod or there's moving people or animals in a shot and single exposure is the best you get



Errr... what were you trying to show here?  I think you just re-tonemapped an HDR?


----------



## Scatterbrained

manaheim said:


> myshkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Raw would of course be much more workable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also keep in mind not everyone travels with a tripod or there's moving people or animals in a shot and single exposure is the best you get
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Errr... what were you trying to show here?  I think you just re-tonemapped an HDR?
Click to expand...

:lmao::lmao: OMFG LMAO I can't believe I didn't catch that!  Too funny, and yes, my original image was taken from 3 RAW exposures, then cropped down to enlarge the cave.  I was actually pretty far away from it at the time. 

Here is another image that is impossible with one exposure. . . . . 
Shooting directly into the sun, making the foreground come out as silhouettes. . . .


----------



## manaheim

^^^ yeah. 

I *think* myshkin was trying to demonstrate this particular point...



myshkin said:


> For all the purists in this thread. Next time you do an HDR, once you finish save your settings where they are(photomatix does this for me automatically but I'm sure you can save them in other programs). Then run your 0 exposure through the software with the same settings you left it from your HDR. I think you all will be saddened by how similar they are



But I think he didn't realize he was doing it to an HDR, which doesn't really so much prove anything as it is kinda amusing.


----------



## STARSITY GRAPHICS

Didn't really read all the other comments yet...but i do agree...this was somewhat not needed...but as a graphic designer...I'd shop the hell out of that and use it in a design or something, background, etc.


----------

