# My first ever HDR image



## Bellaluna (Feb 11, 2012)

This is my first image ever in HDR.  It's of our (electric) fireplace.  I know it's not the greatest image ever, especially since I forgot about how reflective my candle holder was on top of the fireplace and you can see the camera in the shot.    But, I was pretty excited over it, especially since I just upgraded from a D3000 which didn't have auto-bracketing and therefore couldn't do HDR without hassle.

Also, forgive the Photomatix watermarks, I downloaded the trial to try it out.  Now that I know I like it I'll probably end up buying it soon.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 11, 2012)

If you HDR'd this.. why are the lampshades and the top of the mantel totally blown out? You could have saved those too. How many images did you shot to make this? how did you bracket?

Please don't be one of those people that feels like they have to HDR everything they see... it has it's uses, but is not a art form, nor is it a way to get around having to know how to shoot properly.


----------



## Bellaluna (Feb 11, 2012)

Three shots, -2, 0, +2.  Yeah, the lamps are very bright, even in the underexposed image.  I have the hardest time shooting the fireplace with those lamps on, so I usually turn them off.  But I decided to have them on for the HDR.  It was mainly me being being bored (and procrastinating on a paper I'm writing ) and wanting to try HDR on the new camera.


----------



## Compaq (Feb 11, 2012)

Here's my suggestion: Instead of trying HDR on subjects in your house, go out and look for "real" scenes that include the sun and shade. It's more rewarding, you learn more and it's better for us to see your processing. I also took lots of shots in the house at first. Then I ventured out into the garden. Now I consider HDR for most landscapes I do 

If I hold my hands over the lamps, the processing seems nice to me. Not sure if the colour rendition is ideal, but I don't know your house


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 11, 2012)

Bellaluna said:
			
		

> Three shots, -2, 0, +2.  Yeah, the lamps are very bright, even in the underexposed image.  I have the hardest time shooting the fireplace with those lamps on, so I usually turn them off.  But I decided to have them on for the HDR.  It was mainly me being being bored (and procrastinating on a paper I'm writing ) and wanting to try HDR on the new camera.



Maybe use the spot meter and lock exposure for the lamp? I've never tried it with a lamp but maybe it will work. Or maybe use an adjustment brush if your editing program has it ?


----------



## jaicatalano (Feb 11, 2012)

It's not HDR yet. And try another composition. This one is not cutting it. Also don't HDR too much. It's OVERDONE and not used correctly.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 11, 2012)

It's not 'overdone'.  It's just not enough proper exposures to do it right to begin with.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2012)

jaicatalano said:


> It's not HDR yet. And try another composition. This one is not cutting it. Also don't HDR too much. It's OVERDONE and not used correctly.



I love when fat headed pros carpet bomb a rookie's thread and don't offer anything useful to him other than "try not to suck next time."

If you want to criticize, offer specific advice to help the OP make the next image better!  "Don't HDR too much"?  The OP clearly stated, in the title no less, that this is his first HDR.

Mr. Catalano, the next time you post, try to think back to when you were a rookie, and try to come up with something helpful.  Otherwise, you're just typing to feel superior to another photographer.  I don't have any patience for that sort of nonsense.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 11, 2012)

My suggestion to OP would be to never do anything that you consider "a hassle" unless elements are automated for you.

Choices in exposures are something you should be controlling with some amount of care... not simply letting the camera bracket for you and be done.


My suggestion to James would be to not tell others how to express their opinions, except that would be me telling him how to express his, which would have some internal logic issues.

Edit:  That said... who are you to question how a "pro" gives advice?  This always fascinates me.  If someone really is that good, perhaps rather than judging their approach you should just sorta keep your mouth shut and listen?  Call me crazy.


----------



## APHPHOTO (Feb 11, 2012)

Couldnt have said it better myself. Refering to jamesbjenkins comment.


----------



## Bynx (Feb 11, 2012)

Im another one in agreement with JamesBJenkins. I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR. As Sparky said your shot is not that bad, just that it could have used an exposure for the lampshades. I dont know if you cropped the original image but it looks like you used a wide angle lens and shot down at the fireplace causing a keystone effect. Next time just shoot it from straight on. Stoop a bit if you have to or better yet, lower your tripod. One last thing. The interior of your house is the perfect place for HDR. Window light, fluorescent, incandescent, shadows, all makes for needing more than one exposure.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 11, 2012)

I wouldn't be real concerned with composition and camera angle just yet..... just concentrate on the exposure sets needed to bring the dynamic range of the scene into what the camera & post processing can handle.  HDR is a technique in and of itself, not a requirement.  It stands alone as a tool that can be used.  Learning how to use that tool, and _when_, is the aim here.... not creating an image for a mag cover.


----------



## Bellaluna (Feb 11, 2012)

Like I said, this was my first HDR ever.  I got bored at around 7pm and decided to play around.  I have every intention of shooting other subjects, this just seemed the best at the time.  I've tried to get a decent picture of this fireplace for some time (including metering for the lamps), but the only way I could accomplish it was with the lamps off and with a long exposure.  I decided to give it a try with the lamps on this time, and yes they are blown out.  But it's by far the best picture I've gotten of the fireplace with the lamps on.

And yes, the color is pretty true to life, that room is very warm in color terms.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 11, 2012)

Three methods to expose for the lamps:

1. Trial & error.  Not a recommended option, but certainly possible to do.

2. Take a shot, then zoom in and check the histograms in the camera monitor. 

3. Use in-camera spot metering.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 11, 2012)

Bynx said:


> I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR.



Bynx... I hope that wasn't aimed at me!  (If it was aimed at Catalano... that's OK!)  I just get so tired of all the way over-processed crap we are seeing so much of.. mostly on subjects that don't even have high dynamic ranges! I like HDR when used properly... but I don't like HDR cartoons! (although a lot of that is more over done tone mapping, since they don't even seem to know what HDR is!)

 I was trying to help the OP see that she needed more exposures to HDR that properly... I think I made my point on that.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2012)

OP, until recently I had a D90 as well.  It's more than capable of capturing high quality HDR, although thanks to Nikon gimping it with only allowing a 3 shot bracket, you have to sometimes take matters into your own hands.  Thankfully, when shooting stationary objects this isn't an issue.

You have to be in aperture-priority for it to work best, so your depth of field stays consistent.  Leave the metering on matrix and let the D90 do its auto bracketing set of 3 shutter releases, then while being careful not to nudge the camera too much, switch to spot metering and tag the hot spot (in this case, the light over the fireplace) and capture a single image under your spot meter.  When you combine them in post, that should give you the detail you're looking for in the hot spots.

There are lots of ways you can deal with the blown highlights, but that's one of the easier ones.  Especially when you can only take a 3 shot Auto-Bracket.  When you upgrade to FX, this is no longer an issue, as all of them can take up to 9 images in an auto-bracketed sequence.

Please post more images once you've had a chance to take in the advice and shoot some more!  Good luck!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 11, 2012)

manaheim said:


> My suggestion to OP would be to never do anything that you consider "a hassle" unless elements are automated for you.
> 
> Choices in exposures are something you should be controlling with some amount of care... not simply letting the camera bracket for you and be done.
> 
> ...



I certainly don't have any problem with opinions, especially since that's all any of us have on this forum.  My problem is when people like Mr. Catalano jump onto a thread like this, attack the OP and don't offer the slightest bit of specific advice to help the rookie along.  I wouldn't have said a thing about Mr. Catalano if he wouldn't have been such an a$$.  If he wants to be considered a professional, he really should consider using some of his talent or intelligence for the betterment of this community.  Otherwise, as I said, he's just typing to feel superior.  The world doesn't need anymore self-promoting egotism.


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know why bozos hang around the HDR forum advising people not to use HDR.
> ...



Yes it was mainly aimed at Catalano. In your first post however, your first sentence is a$$ backwards, in my opinion. Ive stated the lighting found inside the house is fascinating and needs HDR to really do it justice. Outside shooting for HDR is another thing entirely, and one I find not as interesting as interior. Im really tired of seeing exterior shots of dirty, depressing looking skies and Homer Simpson nuclear yellow green grass. That stuff aside under many circumstances great HDR images can be had outside. The fact is, HDR can be applied to almost anything. And I remember someone saying recently that HDR wasnt an art form, which I disagree with strongly. HDR is something unto itself. It produces more life like images than any single shot, it can also produce images which look different, a more artisitic look to them that you cant find in any single image. There is such a range of looks that go from great to hideous, but even hideous can have an application somewhere. Anywhere where there is a fall off of light from its source is a place for HDR.
By the way cpgibson I agree entirely with your second post.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx said:
> ...



Would you call b/w art?  How about acryllic paints?

HDR isn't art, it's a method... perhaps a medium... but not art in and of itself.

There's nothing wrong with that, and you can certainly produce wonderful art using that method, but simply rendering something with HDR hardly makes it art.


----------



## Bellaluna (Feb 12, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> OP, until recently I had a D90 as well.  It's more than capable of capturing high quality HDR, although thanks to Nikon gimping it with only allowing a 3 shot bracket, you have to sometimes take matters into your own hands.  Thankfully, when shooting stationary objects this isn't an issue.
> 
> You have to be in aperture-priority for it to work best, so your depth of field stays consistent.  Leave the metering on matrix and let the D90 do its auto bracketing set of 3 shutter releases, then while being careful not to nudge the camera too much, switch to spot metering and tag the hot spot (in this case, the light over the fireplace) and capture a single image under your spot meter.  When you combine them in post, that should give you the detail you're looking for in the hot spots.
> 
> ...



Excellent suggestion, I may just try that!  Again, like I said, it was my first HDR, and since the D90 only does 3 exposures for auto-bracketing, I ran with it.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 12, 2012)

Bellaluna said:


> Excellent suggestion, I may just try that!  Again, like I said, it was my first HDR, and since the D90 only does 3 exposures for auto-bracketing, I ran with it.



I'm glad you're getting some useful information.  I really wish I'd found a site like this a few years ago when I was stumbling through teaching myself photography.

I hope you post more, and I hope I can be of some help.  I'm inspired by your signature, because you have the exact setup that I started my business with (D90 w/ kit lens, 55-200, 35 1.8, SB600).  There's nothing like looking at your portfolio and watching your images get better over time...

Cheers!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx said:
> ...



I agree that HDR is an excellent medium for use in interior shots.. and have seen some phenomenal photos done that way. But if it is done, it needs to be done with adequate exposure range to capture all the detail. I am sorry you don't approve of the way I attempted to convey that to the OP.. as I am sure she got the message.


----------



## Bellaluna (Feb 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Its all good!  Like I said, I knew it wasn't the best shot to begin with, but I was excited to had done my first HDR shot.  And the fact that it was 7pm, and I had nothing better to shoot (and I was trying to take a break on the awfully boring paper I had to write, which I have since finished...yay!) it was really a trial and error shot.

Now lets all stop fighting and get along!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Bellaluna said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bynx said:
> ...



hahaha... this isn't fighting! Really! lol!


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 12, 2012)

I don&#8217;t think the OP was submitting what he thought was an award winning photograph. He simply stated that this was his first attempt at HDR and was wondering if he was on the right track. I don&#8217;t think composition was of any concern. His question was more like "is this how you do it?&#8221;. Isn&#8217;t that what this forum is all about? I truly don&#8217;t understand all of the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes. 
OP &#8211; The main purpose for HDR (High Dynamic Range) is to be able to produce an image where range of lights and darks are beyond the effective range of you camera sensor. To practice HDR processing, look for a subject or scene where there is parts that are very dark and very light, such as an outside shot where there is a both bright areas and shadowed areas. Make sure you take at least three exposures; one exposing for the Bright areas, one exposing for the Dark areas and one exposed for the mids. Then process you HDR  and keep playing around with it until the Bright and the Darks both look properly exposed.
I will also add, that when I first started playing with HDR, I always shot in RAW and then adjusted the exposure in ACR . That is a rookie mistake. If you shoot in RAW, DO NOT TOUCH exposure in ACR. That confuses and defeats the purpose.
Lastly, I am sure the &#8220;Pros&#8221; on here will slam my post for improper terminology etc, but my point is to help you out with what I had to learn on my own by trial and error. I may also mention that, though many on this forum do not like the &#8220;cartoon&#8221; look of some HDR&#8217;s, I might mention that although I don&#8217;t particularly like that level of processing, they are very popular and many who sell their work are laughing all the way to the bank with their proceeds from the sale of their &#8220;over processed, cartoon looking, technically incorrect, *art*&#8221;.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Feb 12, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> Would you call b/w art?  How about acryllic paints?
> 
> HDR isn't art, it's a method... perhaps a medium... but not art in and of itself.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that, and you can certainly produce wonderful art using that method, but simply rendering something with HDR hardly makes it art.



 If photography is art, then HDR is art. Take the painter who uses traditional paints; is the painter who uses oils not creating art because he does not use traditional paints?


----------



## Bellaluna (Feb 12, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> I don&#8217;t think the OP was submitting what he thought was an award winning photograph. He simply stated that this was his first attempt at HDR and was wondering if he was on the right track. I don&#8217;t think composition was of any concern. His question was more like "is this how you do it?&#8221;. Isn&#8217;t that what this forum is all about? I truly don&#8217;t understand all of the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes.



Pretty much this, except that I'm a "she".


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

Shooting for HDR I think goes beyond simple photography. Regardless what  many think there is more work and planning that goes into an HDR image.  Whether its a 3D like, clear as a bell image, or an over the top  painterly look, I think both are an Art. Or rather an art form just  beyond photography because its not pure photography and its not pure  pixel pushing.
Hughguesswho, when people come into the HDR forum  spouting off about how this shot or that shot doesnt need to be done as  an HDR image, it ruffles the feathers of a few who just wish they would  piss off and bother other people. The idea of the HDR forum is to post  HDR images, be they good, bad, or ugly. Giving advice on how to make  the ugly, bad, the bad, good is what we are here for, not to spout BS  about what they know little of. As for the guy in question, at the  moment, he doesnt like HDR yet he tone maps his portraits so they look  like over the top HDR images. He used 4 sentences in his post and all but one was nonsense and the other his personal opionion. The image by the OP IS an HDR, there is nothing wrong with the composition. Whether its cutting it or not is, as I said his personal opinion, which I do agree with. I dont like the camera angle used. I can see the camera with a flash on top in the glass object on top of the mantle. HDR isnt used too much. Its a new world to most photographers and it takes a bit of time to learn not to overdo it. I am not sure if the last sentence was meant directly to the image posted or to HDR in general. It can never be used incorrectly. Any HDR image is better than any single shot. Ive never seen this proved otherwise. So to the OP just keep at it. Try the same shot again but take another couple shots more underexposed to bring up the details in the lamps, then post your results. If there is a big improvement, then you will understand why these sites are important to those who want to learn.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Shooting for HDR I think goes beyond simple photography. Regardless what many think there is more work and planning that goes into an HDR image. Whether its a 3D like, clear as a bell image, or an over the top painterly look, I think both are an Art. Or rather an art form just beyond photography because its not pure photography and its not pure pixel pushing.
> Hughguesswho, when people come into the HDR forum spouting off about how this shot or that shot doesnt need to be done as an HDR image, it ruffles the feathers of a few who just wish they would piss off and bother other people. The idea of the HDR forum is to post HDR images, be they good, bad, or ugly. Giving advice on how to make the ugly, bad, the bad, good is what we are here for, not to spout BS about what they know little of. As for the guy in question, at the moment, he doesnt like HDR yet he tone maps his portraits so they look like over the top HDR images. He used 4 sentences in his post and all but one was nonsense and the other his personal opionion. The image by the OP IS an HDR, there is nothing wrong with the composition. Whether its cutting it or not is, as I said his personal opinion, which I do agree with. I dont like the camera angle used. I can see the camera with a flash on top in the glass object on top of the mantle. HDR isnt used too much. Its a new world to most photographers and it takes a bit of time to learn not to overdo it. I am not sure if the last sentence was meant directly to the image posted or to HDR in general. It can never be used incorrectly. Any HDR image is better than any single shot. Ive never seen this proved otherwise. So to the OP just keep at it. Try the same shot again but take another couple shots more underexposed to bring up the details in the lamps, then post your results. If there is a big improvement, then you will understand why these sites are important to those who want to learn.



Bynx, I guess I am confused now. Was this directed to me? Or someone elses remarks? Im on your side.

Seems as though many want to just slam people on TPF for asking questions and wanting to learn something new, yet they never provide anything constructive.

What I REALLY don't understand is why someone would come on the Digital Photography > HDR Discussions forum and talk abou how people shouldnt do HDR. Amazing


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Hugh.. a lot of us use the "Active Topics" link.. so we see ALL current threads... and often comment on them. We do not come to the HDR discussions forum specifically. Some of us do try to offer constructive criticism... some of us don't. I don't think Bynx was aiming that at you... it was probably at Catalano, although it might have been at me too!


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

Not at you Hugh. I was explaining why there is discord on a forum that is just seeking help after you said you didnt understand the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes. The "he" in my last post was Catalano. If people just helped instead of suggesting some other method to use the camera Im betting we would all get along better. Its like someone coming into the Photo forum and suggesting to everyone that they should be all trading in their cameras and shooting with a Winchester because its a better way of shooting. Suggesting to someone they shouldnt be shooting HDR, in an HDR forum, is stupid.

cgipson I have this site set up so the HDR forum is my home page. Thats all Im interested in seeing on this site. I very seldom post anywhere else so I dont just wonder around giving my opinion on lots of things of which I know nothing like it seems some people do here constantly. And thats not pointed at you, since you do have a grasp of HDR.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Shooting for HDR I think goes beyond simple photography. Regardless what  many think *there is more work and planning that goes into an HDR image*.



I agree with this.. and this very concept is part of the problem. To properly execute an HDR image does require extra thought, and ability. And too much of what we are seeing does not have that extra thought or planning put into it! And it is often used to hide lack of ability! So many use HDR just because they think it looks cool.. even though they are overprocessing the hell of their images, without a clue as to what they are doing.



Bynx said:


> Any HDR image is better than any single shot. Ive never seen this proved otherwise.



HDR has the capability of being better than any single exposure... yes.. if done properly to bring out details in the dark ranges, and not blow out the highlight ranges! Done improperly, I will take a single exposure anytime, rather than the cartoonish tone-mapped junk that some seem to find appealing. Of course, that is a personal opinion and a personal dislike also. 

Bynx, you and I have gotten along well in the past.. and I respect your work and ability... and I hope that is mutual! And I hope that continues!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Not at you Hugh. I was explaining why there is discord on a forum that is just seeking help after you said you didnt understand the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes. The "he" in my last post was Catalano. If people just helped instead of suggesting some other method to use the camera Im betting we would all get along better. Its like someone coming into the Photo forum and suggesting to everyone that they should be all trading in their cameras and shooting with a Winchester because its a better way of shooting. Suggesting to someone they shouldnt be shooting HDR, in an HDR forum, is stupid.
> 
> cgipson I have this site set up so the HDR forum is my home page. Thats all Im interested in seeing on this site. I very seldom post anywhere else so I dont just wonder around giving my opinion on lots of things of which I know nothing like it seems some people do here constantly. And thats not pointed at you, since you do have a grasp of HDR.



We are good!   I submitted my last post.. before seeing this one!  I use HDR a bit still.. usually for exposure fusion with B&W.. more than tone-mapping color. Still have a lot to learn there also!


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

I think B&W from a well or even mediocre HDR is spectacular. All the details are brought out making me think of Ansel Adams who did his HDR a slightly different way, but HDR nonetheless.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Hugh.. a lot of us use the "Active Topics" link.. so we see ALL current threads... and often comment on them. We do not come to the HDR discussions forum specifically. Some of us do try to offer constructive criticism... some of us don't. I don't think Bynx was aiming that at you... it was probably at Catalano, although it might have been at me too!



Oh, I wasn't referring to you. Anytime I read a critique from you its constructive and helpful and you explain your opinion. I've never read a post from you with the "you suck and I'm amazing" flavor that some on this string leave on a regular basis. But... enough of that, this is the HDR section.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 12, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:hug::  Thank you, that means a lot! I CAN be an ass sometimes... but I usually try to be nice!


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be honest, I'm not sure photography is an art either... photography can be artistic, but it can also be a picture of my cat, or a shot of a dent I took from a read end collision... with that in mind, I suppose you could argue HDR was an art because there is generally some sort of artistic intent in choosing to use it, but I'd say that's pusing it.

You could say that HDR is "an art" in the sense of it being something that isn't easy to accomplish and takes practice and skill, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting here... is it?

All of the things we employ to make art are tools.  No more, no less.  Cameras, paint brushes, black and white, HDR... tools.  To put it another way, no more is HDR art than a spoon is food.  You may employ the spoon to make food.  You may employ the HDR to make art.  You may also employ the spoon to dig a ditch.  You may also employ the HDR to make a mess of a picture of your friends badass Volkswagen.

Tools to make the art.  Not art itself.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Not at you Hugh. I was explaining why there is discord on a forum that is just seeking help after you said you didnt understand the hate, discontent and condescending attitudes. The "he" in my last post was Catalano. If people just helped instead of suggesting some other method to use the camera Im betting we would all get along better. Its like someone coming into the Photo forum and suggesting to everyone that they should be all trading in their cameras and shooting with a Winchester because its a better way of shooting. Suggesting to someone they shouldnt be shooting HDR, in an HDR forum, is stupid.
> 
> cgipson I have this site set up so the HDR forum is my home page. Thats all Im interested in seeing on this site. I very seldom post anywhere else so I dont just wonder around giving my opinion on lots of things of which I know nothing like it seems some people do here constantly. And thats not pointed at you, since you do have a grasp of HDR.



Bynx, this HDR section is a subset of a larger forum... that forum would be... PHOTOGRAPHY!

In other words, photography is the primary focus here, and employment of HDR is a slave to that.  Therefore, those who are on here will tend to be thinking of photography, and will periodically point out that an HDR was essentially not worth the effort because the same image could be captured with a single exposure... or that HDRing a poorly composed (but rivetingly colorful) picture of feces dung may not be the best use of one's time, because... well... it's a bad picture.

If this were TheHDRForum.com and this section was a photography section and people came in here going off on you for using HDRs, I suppose you would have more of a point.  But it's not.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 12, 2012)

Did you ever stop to consider what the OP asked in the beginning of the thread? What the THREAD is about? You no doubt impress yourself with your comments, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what the thread is about. Just sayin'.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

HughGuessWho said:


> Did you ever stop to consider what the OP asked in the beginning of the thread? What the THREAD is about? You no doubt impress yourself with your comments, but they have absolutely nothing to do with what the thread is about. Just sayin'.



So the guy that can't use quote tags properly is going to lecture me on how to use a forum?

K.

Thanks for the tip.

EDIT: ooo... he fixed it.  

EDIT EDIT: Snide remarks from me, aside, I hardly think you can accuse me of derailing this particular thread.  I just happen to be on the train and am going along for the ride.  Don't like it?  Meh.  Shout at the rain.  It'll do you as much good.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 12, 2012)

No, it's about lecturing people who feel like they have to demeaning and degrading to everyone. You should re-read your own &#8220;lecture&#8221; that you posted moments ago and then look in the mirror. Oh, yeah, sorry, I forgot. YOU are the All Knowing and everyone else is clueless.
By the way, I didn&#8217;t mention your name OR quote you. What makes you think I was talking about you, huh?


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Bynx, this HDR section is a subset of a larger forum... that forum would be... PHOTOGRAPHY!
> 
> In other words, photography is the primary focus here, and employment of HDR is a slave to that.  Therefore, those who are on here will tend to be thinking of photography, and will periodically point out that an HDR was essentially not worth the effort because the same image could be captured with a single exposure... or that HDRing a poorly composed (but rivetingly colorful) picture of feces dung may not be the best use of one's time, because... well... it's a bad picture.
> 
> If this were TheHDRForum.com and this section was a photography section and people came in here going off on you for using HDRs, I suppose you would have more of a point.  But it's not.



All I can say to this is what a crock of sh!t. This is the HDR forum. If you want to preach not to use HDR go someplace else because that kind of diatribe isnt welcome. Sure its part of the Photography site but I think it goes beyond Photography. Now to those silly purists, that's saying a no no, but its true. There are very few people with cameras that haunt these forums that are capable of producing an image which meets the quality of a properly executed HDR image. Anyone posting an HDR image in the HDR forum should expect to receive nothing but help to improve their post. Not to be told it wasnt necessary, its uninteresting, or its crap with no explanation of why or how. Sure there is lots of crap by color blind people with cameras. But if they are really interested in learning HDR they can learn to do it right if they pay attention. They learn nothing from the likes of the guy already mentioned too many times here. As to your last drivel about spoons and tools and art. What drugs are you on? A polaroid is a camera and it takes a picture. I would never consider for a moment that anything coming from that camera without any intervention by the photographer would be called art. But once there is any kind of intervention by the photographer to change the image in a way that the person wants, then it falls into the realm of art. Good art, or bad art, but art nonetheless. Now on thinking what I just said, I suppose that with an 8x10 back on a professional very expensive camera a work of art could be made from a polaroid print, but we are not considering that expense when referring to a polaroid camera.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

Come on, it was a perfectly well-reasoned argument and you just went off on an overly-defensive tirade.

Come on, Bynx.  I know you can see more in there than that.

I say this with the utmost respect, btw.  I'm not giving you ****.

I understand what you're saying... people do expect (and have reason to expect) help in making an HDR more effective as a technical execution, but it IS a photography forum, and they should equally expect people to express opinions on how to better execute the PHOTOGRAPH as well.  Suggesting otherwise is being a little bit narrow.

And then you're saying you can't generate art off a crappy polaroid camera?  Really?

Maybe you're more far gone into this HDR world than I thought.  Dunno.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Feb 12, 2012)

manaheim said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure photography is an art either...



I think you answer yourself: 



manaheim said:


> *photography can be artistic*, but it can also be a picture of my cat, or a shot of a dent I took from a read end collision...



Within the context of our conversation, for all intents and purposes,  HDR is artistic by nature. Why? Because it isn't just a picture of a dent or a shot of a cat. Sure, there is lots of bad and pointless HDR. But there is *bad art in all forms of art. It doesn't mean it isn't art. 
*
Because a first grader scribbles the sun and stick figure representations of her family, is this not an artistic expression by her. Is it not art? 



manaheim said:


> with that in mind, I suppose you could argue HDR was an art because there is generally some sort of artistic intent in choosing to use it, but I'd say that's pusing it.



It's not pushing it at all. Just like a painter envisions a scene, picks up his paint brush, and paints the canvas, a HDR photographer has his own artistic process to produce his/her art.  



manaheim said:


> You could say that HDR is "an art" in the sense of it being something that isn't easy to accomplish and takes practice and skill, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting here... is it?



Done properly, HDR is a thorough artistic process. Hours can be spent on a single image. HDR at its best should be a well thought out image that takes vision and experience to capture; further, it requires technical skill and working knowledge of equipment and post production software. 





manaheim said:


> All of the things we employ to make art are tools.  No more, no less.  Cameras, paint brushes, black and white, HDR... tools.  To put it another way, no more is HDR art than a spoon is food.  You may employ the spoon to make food.  You may employ the HDR to make art.  You may also employ the spoon to dig a ditch.  You may also employ the HDR to make a mess of a picture of your friends badass Volkswagen.



This is a meandering and ambiguous point. A paintbrush is to the canvas is as a camera is to HDR images. 


manaheim said:


> Tools to make the art.  Not art itself.



If all these things are tools to make art, then they are by default artistic mediums. They are capable producing art, thus an image produced from the medium of a camera can be art. 

Look, you're not even sure if you consider photography an art. Once you decide, let me know.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 12, 2012)

Fine, HDR is art.

I'm gonna go live in my screwdriver.  See ya.


----------



## Bynx (Feb 12, 2012)

Whew, I thought he'd never leave. I hope the shutter didnt hit him on the ass on the way out.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 13, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> Whew, I thought he'd never leave. I hope the shutter didnt hit him on the ass on the way out.



Oh I'm still here stalking you.  Someday I'll send you over the edge by suggesting HDR was a pointless tool in this situation.  Can't wait.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 13, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The current US Federal Anti-Cyber-Stalking law is found at 47 USC sec. 223

*Cyberstalking* is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization.


----------



## Bynx (Feb 13, 2012)

Back to the image. Nothing wrong with the composition. This would make a nice ad shot for the Dimplex Fireplace. Except for the blown lampshades. On a personal note....I really like your painted wall.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Feb 13, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Back to the image. Nothing wrong with the composition. This would make a nice ad shot for the Dimplex Fireplace. Except for the blown lampshades. On a personal note....I really like your painted wall.



Thats real nice. Care to share how you made the change, Bynx?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 13, 2012)

Looks like he corrected the color temperature... see on the original the white moulding has a lot of yellow in it, from the incadescent lighting? he just corrected the WB. Mioght have dropped the brightness a tad too...


----------



## Bynx (Feb 13, 2012)

I have almost the exact same fireplace heater. I applied some gamma correction and a bit of unsharp mask as well as reduced the yellow a bit. I think there is still a bit too much red because thats a nice clean brass finish on the trim around the fireplace opening.


----------

