# Geothermal...



## STIC (Dec 6, 2012)

Some crappy HDR images...


----------



## tevo (Dec 6, 2012)

Oh dear. When shooting HDR, consider why you are choosing to shoot HDR. Some questions you should ask yourself:

1. Is it necessary?
2. Does my composition include two different areas producing wildly different amounts of light, making it difficult to properly expose both at the same time?


In the event that these are not HDR photos (even though they contain a high dynamic range), then my general critique would be that the contrast is MUCH too high, the images are physically difficult to look at. The subject in the first two is unclear, and the images are very busy. The third would have been a great shot less the post processing. The fourth is much better, very well composed. Black and white may have done it justice.


----------



## STIC (Dec 6, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## LaFoto (Dec 6, 2012)

Well, these tonemapped photos certainly LOOK like overcooked HDR, so don't be surprised this might be assumed.
They may represent something relating to heat, but to cook them to this extent goes far. Too far, I think. The halo in the first is seriously distracting, as are the contrasts in the second. 
While I certainly know what I'm looking at, I can't help but agree with Tevo on the first three are hard on the eyes to look at. 
The fourth is nice! The dots in the sky - are they stars?


----------



## runnah (Dec 6, 2012)

Ahhh it burns!


----------



## JackandSally (Dec 6, 2012)

I honestly took all but the very last one as HDR.


----------



## Demers18 (Dec 6, 2012)

JackandSally said:
			
		

> I honestly took all but the very last one as HDR.



Same here and HDR or not they are way over cooked and detract from the image.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 6, 2012)

I like the last one, but I too thought the rest were HDR. They are WAY over done for my taste.


----------



## sm4him (Dec 6, 2012)

STIC said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh dear. When shooting HDR, consider why you are choosing to shoot HDR. Some questions you should ask yourself:
> ...



One would think that because the subject IS unclear, to the objective viewer. 
I honestly thought the first two shots were some kind of composite Photoshop image created to look like the day after the Apocalypse. They are very nice Doomsday photos. 
But they have such an overcooked "feel" to them that your intent to show the geothermal areas is lost on me.



STIC said:


> To be fair, if your going to offer critique, try to at least ascertain if the poster IS putting forward HDR examples before criticising, especially when said poster has NOT labeled the photos HDR, nor talked about HDR or even mentioned HDR...



I'm gonna try to say this in the nicest way possible--you will get much more out of this forum, and out of the C&C given, if you will not become quite so defensive and jump down people's throats when they say things you don't like.
WHY would Tevo need to first ASK if it's HDR?? It LOOKS like HDR, badly overcooked at that, so he worked from that basis. He DID add "in the event that these are not HDR photos..." -- I thought he did a very accurate assessment.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Dec 6, 2012)

Honestly- I would just delete them all. They are not pleasant to look at and are so busy that I cannot focus on anything in the photo. They gave me a headache. 



STIC said:


> Again, no one mentioned HDR...they are PP'd shots to highlight the colours and textures of the geothermal area...


Actually- you destroyed the colors and textures. These look nothing like a geothermal area. They are more like an abstract paint splattering that kinda hurts to look at. I can barely decipher what the picture is of. 



STIC said:


> Why you would think _the subject in the first two is unclear_ is unclear to me...they are shots of active geothermal areas...what's not to be clear about...


When you are photographing an area to show to others then you need to think about what you want to show specifically otherwise it is usually a snapshot. The best photos I have seen are very simple. Keep that in mind next time. 




STIC said:


> The third shot was very, very flat without the processing, but i can see where it may look 'too much'...i guess it's a matter of taste...


If the shot was flat you should have analyzed why that was the case and then go back and fix it with your camera! Processing is good for tweaking an already good image but not fixing a crappy image. It is a matter of taste about as much as burnt food is a matter of taste- there are some oddballs that might enjoy that taste but it is still burnt. 



STIC said:


> The last one was a long exposure at night and i don't think you'd get any detail in a B&W conversion but who knows...


There is barely any detail in it now. And the sky is blown- that is tough to do in a night shot. Congratulations. 



STIC said:


> To be fair, if your going to offer critique, try to at least ascertain if the poster IS putting forward HDR examples before criticising, especially when said poster has NOT labeled the photos HDR, nor talked about HDR or even mentioned HDR...


To be fair if you are going to post your images up for being critiqued you should suck it up and take the criticism you get. Also these photos do resemble HDR so get over it when people mistake them for that.


----------



## tevo (Dec 6, 2012)

Well then I applaud your ability to take a single exposure and make it look like an HDR left in the oven for 6-8 hours.


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 6, 2012)

Defensive much?  

lol, nothing useful to add...

carry on...


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## SCraig (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:


> Who knows why TEVO would ask if it's HDR...? Maybe, for the same reason he also claimed that 'the subject in the first two is unclear'...This either makes him incredibly dumb, or lacking the gift of eyesight...


If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, most of the time it really is a duck.  Perhaps your eyesight is what needs to be looked into.

Regardless, attitude like yours I can do without so I think I'll do myself a favor and add your username to my ignore list.  If you need assistance adding mine to yours someone will be glad to provide instructions.


----------



## Mully (Dec 29, 2012)

Where is Charlie when you need him??????


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 29, 2012)

OP, you seem to have a large stick or possibly a farm animal of some variety lodged in your bum. Take a deep breath, and calm yourself. ;-)

The photos have a subject, yes. It's a geothermal area, which I would not have known without you saying that. Simply because you took photos of a geothermal area, And titled your thread "Geothermal," does not mean that your images have a clear subject or focus; much less any compositional merit to speak of. You may see them as the best images ever, but if you were your own judge, your photography would never improve.

You did indeed do some flavor of tone mapping, which really botches the images as a whole. Tonal range is all over the place, everything looks plastic, and it doesn't do anything to make the "subject" (whatever that may be) pop or stand out.

I'm sorry dude, they're just plain ol' not good, and your attitude is off the charts in a bad way.

You could continue on this trend of insulting forum members and publicly refuting the critique shared by numerous members if you'd like... Since clearly you are at the top of your game and have no one to look up to. Right?

Or...

I've heard of this great site, it's called Google, and you can type in a subject you want to know more about, and it will give you a bunch of different links of varying importance for you to browse. I think your first and most important search should be "composition in landscape photography."


----------



## terri (Dec 29, 2012)

OP: if you don't like what people have to say about your images, thank them kindly for looking and move on.   Please do not engage in name-calling from a defensive posture.   You have several seasoned members here telling you the same thing about these shots, and you find you are having to explain each and every one.   Could it be _possible_, just _maybe_, that they aren't as good as you'd hoped?   You have to have a thicker hide than what you've displayed here to get along on this forum.



> Where is Charlie when you need him??????


We don't need him.   Potential bad call.


----------



## Snakeguy101 (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > One would think that because the subject IS unclear, to the objective viewer.
> ...




Here I edited one of your images to the same over-the-top level of the originals that you posted so that you can understand why we think that over editing is not a good thing.

Now- you might be able to squint your eyes and tilt your head a little and make out that it is a trike. I could also title it "tricycle" but the part of the image that stands out the most is the posterization and NOT the intended subject.


----------



## pic_chick (Dec 29, 2012)

you know Stic you are not a nice person your photo are bad I don't like them they ARE hard to look and you are hard to read.I think the 1st thing you should googleis manners. your colors are everywhere and none of them look real they look like a bad acid tripping dream.  IF I liked you more if you would listen I would have spent more time on CC


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:
			
		

> You guys are are awesome...
> 
> Thanks for all the positive feedback.
> 
> ...



It's not a non existing factor if everyone is critiquing it...

Hopefully you have absorbed said critique and either chose to apply what you see fit, or disregard entirely. In the future, I suggest you use the "Just for Fun!" forum to post images that you do not wish to receive critique on. I think that would work best for preventing future threads that end this way. 

I have to ask though... and please be honest. Are you over the age of 13? I think that's in the ToS that you have to be 13 or older to join but I could be wrong.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:


> Who knows why TEVO would ask if it's HDR...? Maybe, for the same reason he also claimed that 'the subject in the first two is unclear'...This either makes him incredibly dumb, or lacking the gift of eyesight



I'm shire he HAD the gift of eyesight but perhaps he looked at the photos to long and damaged his eyes. 

Simply put they are extremely ever processed so much so tht I find them hard to look at. 



STIC said:


> You guys are are awesome...
> 
> Thanks for all the positive feedback.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that you are the one who is the most defensive here.  One of the things I find refreshing about this forum is how people do not hold back their real opinions on things. Yes they are blunt but at least they are honest.


----------



## baturn (Dec 29, 2012)

why do you guys even respond to dicks like this guy ? Ignore him.


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## Mully (Dec 29, 2012)

Since the OP seems to have his own view why not open the jar and let him escape.... his views are harmless so why spit venom in the jar ....let him go to drown is his own vomit


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

HDR...


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that you are the one who is the most defensive here.  One of the things I find refreshing about this forum is how people do not hold back their real opinions on things. Yes they are blunt but at least they are honest.
> ...



Why wouldn't you be? Well thats the best way to learn. Someone saying they don't like your image does not mean they are saying they don't like you so don't take it personal.  When people get defensive they are not willing to listen to things that can make them better. 

As for why people cannot find the subject of your in your photo sometimes something else stands out so much that it distracts the viewer from the subject. It's much like when you see someone with a big zit on their face you have a hard time looking at anything else. I honestly found the processing so distracting that I didn't even bother looking for a subject in the image I just closed the image.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 29, 2012)

STIC said:
			
		

> Well, firstly, yes, i am over 13...cheers, but thanks very much for the implied insult...
> 
> Also, "It's not a non existing factor if everyone is critiquing it...", well, it's just that it IS!
> 
> ...



I never mentioned HDR DUDE. I said they look tone mapped, as per the egregious halos. If you are shooting straight to jpeg and your camera is spitting out files like this, you have an issue on your hands. But no, you processed the images poorly and/or tone mapped them. 

And no, there is no requirement to put labels on photos to describe them, your goal is to make a photograph where a description is not needed.


----------



## STIC (Dec 29, 2012)

NOW, it's HDR...


----------



## ratssass (Dec 29, 2012)

...i thought they were overcooked hdr.you say they are not.i'm ok with that.still they are a bit tough on the eyes,but mother nature isn't always pretty,either.Realizing you didn't ak for c&c maybe it should be requested when its wanted,or vise-versa.


----------

