# First time HDR



## justinmartin (Jan 14, 2013)

These are a couple of my first HDR shots from a cruise I was on last week. Any cc welcome.
Thanks


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 14, 2013)

Extremely extremely extremely extremely extremely over processed.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 14, 2013)

1 looks good, close to overlooked but I like it. 

2 is the best of the set. Great job. 

3 & 4. Overlooked for my eye.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jan 14, 2013)

Zowie.. what planet is that? The planet of the *oversaturated* Neon Sex goddesses, right? Saw that movie in the 60's while on acid... didn't remember it being this vibrant!


----------



## colnago1331 (Jan 15, 2013)

Boy, you guys are rough! 

1, 3 and 4 are overprocessed. HDR can start to look like bad CGI when you overdo it, and that's what I'm feeling on these three. That said, 3 is my favorite photo of the group, the overprocessing notwithstanding. In other words - I like the idea of 3, just not the execution.

2 doesn't seem to be too overprocessed to me. I like the colors and the look; I just don't think it's a very interesting photo. It would be great for the cruise line's brochure, though.

Photography is, as we all know, a very subjective matter. And this is even more true when it comes to post processing. I, personally, am not a huge fan of HDR, but I can see why people like it. I think, though, that as you do it more and more you'll start to get a better feel for what, generally, works and what doesn't.


----------



## jjphotos (Jan 15, 2013)

You went a little overboard on the processing for my tastes...

I don't remember the ocean having purple water haha.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 15, 2013)

Three would work, if you hauled those sliders right back.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Jan 15, 2013)

Were you on the Allure or the Oasis?


----------



## justinmartin (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks for all of the feedback. I appreciate all of the comments. 

Looks like I've got some learning to do. 

The boat was The Independence of the Seas.


----------



## Awiserbud (Jan 15, 2013)

HDR seems to be a taboo subject here, Lots of purists who cringe at the very mention of it, yes they are over-processed, but clearly natural wasn't the goal. for my money i quite like 3 and 4, as pieces of art they work well except for the horizon being pretty much in the centre of the frame (rule of 3rds purists may jump on that one too) 
I wonder if you would have got the same responses if you hadn't mentioned the HDR processing.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 15, 2013)

Ha ha ha!  "Overboard!"  Ha ha ha!


----------



## dmunsie (Jan 15, 2013)

I think "3" would have been stellar if you could have shot the wake from the boat (ship?) centered with just a touch of the back end of the ship in the frame to provide contrast to scale. As for the color in the images, I love it. It's a tad over saturated/processed, but would probably look great on a print. I love the fact that hdr demands an immediate response from the viewer. You either immediately hate it or love it.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 15, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> HDR seems to be a taboo subject here, Lots of purists who cringe at the very mention of it, yes they are over-processed, but clearly natural wasn't the goal. for my money i quite like 3 and 4, as pieces of art they work well except for the horizon being pretty much in the centre of the frame (rule of 3rds purists may jump on that one too)
> I wonder if you would have got the same responses if you hadn't mentioned the HDR processing.



Did you think we wouldn't have guessed?  *How stupid do you think we are?* 

I don't mind HDR.  But if the first comment you make about a photograph is about the process, then it isn't a photograph but something else entirely.


----------



## justinmartin (Jan 15, 2013)

dmunsie said:
			
		

> I think "3" would have been stellar if you could have shot the wake from the boat (ship?) centered with just a touch of the back end of the ship in the frame to provide contrast to scale. As for the color in the images, I love it. It's a tad over saturated/processed, but would probably look great on a print. I love the fact that hdr demands an immediate response from the viewer. You either immediately hate it or love it.



I couldn't get any further reach over the railing from my balcony. 8 stories up and hanging out with my camera over the railing was enough for me.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 16, 2013)

justinmartin said:


> dmunsie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sheesh! No commitment some people  (jk of course!)


----------



## Awiserbud (Jan 16, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > HDR seems to be a taboo subject here, Lots of purists who cringe at the very mention of it, yes they are over-processed, but clearly natural wasn't the goal. for my money i quite like 3 and 4, as pieces of art they work well except for the horizon being pretty much in the centre of the frame (rule of 3rds purists may jump on that one too)
> ...



My comment wasn't about the photograph at all...it was about the responses to the photograph/s, And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be. The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR, there are lots of still very underexpose segments, The excessive tones and unatural colours also have nothing to do with HDR they are just a result of over saturation or colour balance.


----------



## Light Guru (Jan 16, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be.



If done well then yes that is true.



Awiserbud said:


> The shots in this thread for starters don't look HDR



COMPLETELY WRONG, they scream over processed HDR.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 16, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Awiserbud said:
> ...



Did you fail to spot the huge halos around the edges?  Did you fail to spot the very obvious tone mapping?  Really?  *shakes head in disbelief*

Edited to Add: No disrespect intended to the OP.  This was the OP's first attempt at HDR so was honestly asking a question.  

Well executed HDR for me is difficult to spot.  With some of today's cameras, it's not as necessary.  I have found that I assumed I would need to use HDR and found that I could grab enough detail from shadows without giving away valuable IQ.  My D800 and 645D are both very capable and have the dynamic range to deal with most situations.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jan 17, 2013)

You should go back to "normal".. HDR like this is making my eyes water..


----------



## Buckster (Jan 17, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > And guessing whether a photograph is HDR or not is not as black and white make it out to be.
> ...


Actually, I'd guess that, technically, none of them are HDR, but all are tonemapped - 3 of them to within an inch of spontaneous combustion.

I like the look of the second one, but I'd likely put some red back into at least certain places, like the wood and the sunset, but that's just me.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 17, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Awiserbud said:
> ...



Come, now, let's not mess about with definitions.  You ask people what HDR is, this is what they will talk about.  I know it is tone-mapping, but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever.  I'm not interested in that.  I'm more interested in what makes a good image.  In my view none of those images are good.  They are all over processed.  The second one least so, but it still looks like CGI


----------



## Buckster (Jan 17, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...


Thanks for your opinion.  I'll put it right over there in the box marked, "opinions".


----------



## Awiserbud (Jan 18, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...



well thats the whole point...Definition..the description of what something is or isn't. If i took a single file, tone mapped it and played around with the curves etc would i get away with labelling it HDR?


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 19, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



So you don't know what people mean when they call it HDR? HDR has become like it or not to common way to call this process with images.  It's a simplification that is not going to go away soon. Taking multiple shots is not necessarily HDR.  I frequently take multiple shots and blend them at similar or the same EV to get more traffic trails into a shot for example.  That's not HDR because I am not increasing the Dynamic Range of the image.

The snobbery on here sometimes is baffling.  I hate seeing the willy waving on here how one poster thinks they know more than another, I'd rather see images and remember that this section is a *GALLERY *section.  There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content. The point of this section is to show us your images.  Not to debate what is or isn't HDR.  These may be just tone mapped, they be multiple images that have ALSO been tone mapped.  I do know the difference but this part of the forum is for *IMAGES*, and for examination of those images.

JEEZ.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 19, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


HDR and tonemapping aren't the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educate them when it comes up.

Here's another one to get bunched up over: OOF and Bokeh are not the same thing, no matter what a lot of people who don't apparently know any better think, and it doesn't hurt to educated them when it comes up.

Like it or not, very few of us are interesting in coddling mistaken ideas, since it just adds to the confusion when people are trying to communicate with one another.

Suck it up, buttercup, 'cause it ain't gonna stop.


----------



## Awiserbud (Jan 19, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...



My initial post in this thread was based on what other people had already posted, "over-processed etc etc etc" and this is where HDR purists jump on people for adding a little art to their HDR images, yes i totally agree that an image should be based on the final results and taken for exactly what it is...At a local photography group photos are printed off and judged solely on the final image. Nobody asks what camera was used, what lens, or how was it processed, these things just arn't important. Hence why i made the comment would the OP have gotten the same "over-processed" comments if he had just posted the pictures without mentioning they were a result of HDR processing. I suspect he wouldn't because most of the responses were about the processing apart from a couple (of which i was included BTW) that mentioned other points.

Jeez.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 19, 2013)

Buckster said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Awiserbud said:
> ...



Get off your high horse talking down to me like a child.  And keep your playground talk for the playground.  Grow up.  These discussions are for a general discussion thread.  The OP was asking about his images.  You turn it into a b1tchfest.  Grow the hell up.  I am not a buttercup and I know more about photography than you appear to give me credit for.  

I see more discussion here than gallery images.  So you are off topic.  Grow up and learn some respect.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 19, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


Stop acting like a child having a tantrum, and perhaps you'll stop being treated like one.

In other words, lighten up, Francis.  :lmao:


----------



## Sarmad (Jan 20, 2013)

The second image is beautiful, and has right amount of colors, for the other three you went a little overboard!


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 20, 2013)

Buckster said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



You're the one directing the post at the poster rather than the issue.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 20, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


No, I'm really not.  Feel free to go back and read what I actually wrote before you decided to have your little tantrum.

I stand behind the truth of the matter: HDR and tonemapping are two different things, and it's not inappropriate to point that out

Neither is it inappropriate to have a discussion on a forum such as this, whether you think it is or not.  Lots of threads start out with just a photo, and evolve into a discussion about that photo, then about the techniques or gear or thoughts behind that photo, then those techniques or gear or thoughts in more general terms.

You don't get to dictate to anyone here how those conversations develop and evolve, nor what we're allowed to say or talk about within the bounds of what the administration here deems acceptable.  So far, the only thing that appears to be out of line with what's considered acceptable here is your ranting little baby-fit and the fact that you can't seem to move on from it.  My advice is that you get over it.

Having done a fair amount of HDR with multiple images then tonemapped vs tonemapping of single images, I realize how difficult it is to do full HDR on images with waves or other large areas of things that can't line up from image to image over a span of 3 to 7 images, even with the anti-ghosting abilities of today's HDR software.  That's why I guessed these were NOT _*actual*_ HDR images, but were instead tonemapped from single images.

Please note that I never said I dislike tonemapped single images, nor that I think it's somehow "wrong" to do that.  I don't care what people do to process their images.  To me, all's fair in that department.

Now then... You don't have to agree with my educated guess, nor do you have to like my assessment in that regard, nor do you have to be happy when people decide to have conversations about things on a discussion forum without your permission.  But as an adult, you DO have to live with all of it and are expected not to have baby fits over it, so chill out and move on.


----------



## Awiserbud (Jan 20, 2013)

here here...pretty much what i would have said if i could have been bothered to. Its not big or clever to rant at individuals online, especially when they have no idea who they are yet still demand respect. 

"*shakes head in disbelief*
but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever.
There is a whole section for debates like this where you can willy wave to your hearts content.
JEEZ"

There was no need for any of the above comments, they add nothing but hostility and for me that was the start of the so called "B1tchfest", I chose not to bite at many of your comments directed at me, but your online manner and the way you speak to people you know absolutely nothing about leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 20, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> here here...pretty much what i would have said if i could have been bothered to. Its not big or clever to rant at individuals online, especially when they have no idea who they are yet still demand respect.
> 
> "*shakes head in disbelief*
> but there are way too many people on this forum who try too hard to appear too clever.
> ...



my apologies if you found my comments to be aggressive. That wasn't my intent. I was ill at the in between rushing into the bathroom to throw up so my apologies for being hasty in my tone.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 20, 2013)

Buckster said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



the "suck it up, buttercup comment was both aggressive and personal. It was unnecessary and condescending. My objection to this is not a tantrum it's an objection to being talked to in that manner.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 20, 2013)

thereyougo! said:


> the "suck it up, buttercup comment was both aggressive and personal. It was unnecessary and condescending. My objection to this is not a tantrum it's an objection to being talked to in that manner.


It was indeed a tantrum, and the "buttercup" comment was lighthearted, not aggressive, and no big deal until you decided to act like a toddler who got his sucker taken away over it, and that was because you didn't like being put in your place over the ORIGINAL comments that you've now strayed FAR FROM because you can't actually address them with any coherency.

Most intelligent people in your situation at this point would just STFU and let it go.  Just sayin'...


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2013)

Buck and Thereyougo - drop it now. If you wish to continue your private discussion continue it in private messages.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> Buck and Thereyougo - drop it now. If you wish to continue your private discussion continue it in private messages.


Good thing you stepped in when you did!  A few more days of silence, and I might've forgotten the whole thing even happened!!  :salute:


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2013)

Darn it - neglected to check the darn post dates - sorry guys you did cool off (or at least forgot about it).


----------

