# Palms in Water



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Here is a picture I took of Some palm trees. There was this little pond that was in the middle. As I was walking  by I looked over and thought what a peaceful looking place. There are some darker areas along the border because I added a vignette.  I like the way it keeps your framed in the middle.




palms in water by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## dandaluzphotography (Jul 17, 2012)

Really nice capture, Vip.  Looks like a cool place.  Where is it?  I've been using vignetting also as way to center focus on the subject.  I'm learning!


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

This in Tucson and a local park. Many people go here to take portraits.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

The vignette is a personal thing; I'm not overly fond of them, but I do like the image.  Nicely captured.


----------



## JRE313 (Jul 17, 2012)

Cool trees, 
I am posting another photo in a few min hope you like!!!!


----------



## Bynx (Jul 17, 2012)

I dont think a vignette should be put onto a photo to force the viewer to look at only a certain part of the image. There are times when a vignette actually enhances an image by eliminating some annoyance around the edge of a pic, making the subject seem more complete and sort of act as a frame. Well you already have a frame here with a vignette on top of it. Doesnt work for me. I dont know if the sky is a result of your vignette or just poor processing. The dirty parts of the sky carries over into the reflections in the pond. This is an interesting spot to photograph. Im sorry you are bored with just producing a good image.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx I am not bored not sure why you assume that I am. I just have different taste than you very different. What you think is a poor image I may think is an excellent image. One mans trash is another mans treasure.


In this photo it had been raining. Clouds all over the sky and they varied in color. I really wish there was a better sky to work with however what you see is not sky its white grey cloud cover. Its hard to get great detail on these days. You are correct the water does reflect the image so you see the cloud cover in the water as well.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 17, 2012)

I only say bored because thats what you said prior. You said something like you would be bored if all the images were realistic looking. But the result here is the same. When you post a good image I will be the first to say so. If its not, I will say that too. In this case it would be better without that vignette since the image is interesting enough on its own especially since you added a large black frame as well.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx I said _all_ images..you leave no room to imagine different. My style is different than yours, yes? So with your style, my style, JRE313 style, bluemeannie, and so on we have a vast amount of unique styles to view.

So I like to keep mine with what I like and not what you like. I leave that up to you.   I really do not want this thread closed and do not want to argue. I will say that what you think is good and not good is totally your opinion and not the final word. 

Lets just not get into the whole debate on what is good and not good especially when it comes to a vignette...that is just the icing on the cake or to much icing on the cake. The image is good, processing is good so the vignette is a hit or miss for folks who do and do not like it.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 17, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> So I like to keep mine with what I like and not what you like.



Good on ya'. What _you _like is what's important.

I dig what you've done here...


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> I only say bored because thats what you said prior. You said something like you would be bored if all the images were realistic looking. But the result here is the same. *When you post a good image I will be the first to say so*. If its not, I will say that too. In this case it would be better without that vignette since the image is interesting enough on its own especially since you added a large black frame as well.


Really?  And you are qualified to determine when an image is good because?  Art is subjective...  there are as many styles and techniques as there are artists.  We can all say what we like and what we don't like, and we can elaborate on why we like or don't like it, and suggest ways that we feel it could be improved.  What we CANNOT do however is say whether it's good or bad!


----------



## Bynx (Jul 17, 2012)

I dont understand the confusion about what an HDR image is. A composite image made up of 2 or more images taken with different shutter speeds, producing an image which has more detail in both the highlight and shadow areas than either of the images from which it came producing a lifelike photo realism. Anything else that doesnt fit that description is just heavy handed tone mapping and should be considered a digitally altered image and not an HDR image. Its the same as comparing a single image right out of the camera and saying its the same as one with a lot of Photoshopping. They may have started out the same but its where they end up that determines whether its a photo or a digitally altered image. So one does not have to be qualified to determine if a tone mapped image is a good HDR or a good digitally altered image. (Read that as bad HDR.) There is a place for each. In my opinion.

And I never talked about the good or bad aspects of the image from an artistic point of view. Not at all. I just referred to a good or bad HDR. Art is subjective. But a B&W image is only a B&W image no matter what else you want to call it.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

That is certainly one definition, but really, "HDR" is literally, "High Dynamic Range" so why is not any image with a higher-than-normal dynamic range an HDR?


----------



## JAC526 (Jul 17, 2012)

I like the image overall.  But I think that the processing does not make the place look peaceful.

If that was the mood you were trying to achieve I think you failed.  If not then no worries.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> I like the image overall.  But I think that the processing does not make the place look peaceful.
> 
> If that was the mood you were trying to achieve I think you failed.  If not then no worries.




Keep in mind it was a gloomy day. Had there been sun shining in and nice blue sky with clouds processing would have been different. 

What I think is peaceful and you may be totally different sides of the fence. I don't think I failed to what I think peaceful but I may have failed to what you think peaceful is. No worries just want to clear that up.


----------



## Bynx (Jul 17, 2012)

tirediron said:


> That is certainly one definition, but really, "HDR" is literally, "High Dynamic Range" so why is not any image with a higher-than-normal dynamic range an HDR?



If its a photo realistic image then it is an HDR if it also has a higher than normal dynamic range. But if its not photo realistic then its just a tone mapped digitally altered image.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> *When you post a good image I will be the first to say so. If its not, I will say that too.*



So is the only thing that constitutes a "good image" the quality of the HDR treatment? That's kind of silly. 



Bynx said:


> And I never talked about the good or bad aspects of the image from an artistic point of view. Not at all. *I just referred to a good or bad HDR.* Art is subjective. But a B&W image is only a B&W image no matter what else you want to call it.



Judging by the previous quoted sentence, that's not how it sounded. 

You really have some wild ideas on what kind of "Imaging Authority" you are, IMO.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jul 17, 2012)

Based on the picture's merits alone, I would remove the vignette as it is not adding anything to this image, it appears that it is taking away.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > That is certainly one definition, but really, "HDR" is literally, "High Dynamic Range" so why is not any image with a higher-than-normal dynamic range an HDR?
> ...


  I'm afraid I'm not bright enough to follow your train of thought.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> I dont understand the confusion about what an HDR image is. A composite image made up of 2 or more images taken with different shutter speeds, producing an image which has more detail in both the highlight and shadow areas than either of the images from which it came producing a lifelike photo realism. Anything else that doesnt fit that description is just heavy handed tone mapping and should be considered a digitally altered image and not an HDR image. Its the same as comparing a single image right out of the camera and saying its the same as one with a lot of Photoshopping. They may have started out the same but its where they end up that determines whether its a photo or a digitally altered image. So one does not have to be qualified to determine if a tone mapped image is a good HDR or a good digitally altered image. (Read that as bad HDR.) There is a place for each. In my opinion.
> 
> And I never talked about the good or bad aspects of the image from an artistic point of view. Not at all. I just referred to a good or bad HDR. Art is subjective. But a B&W image is only a B&W image no matter what else you want to call it.





So Bynx why did you post these images in the HDR forum....(you need to click the link to be taken to original post) its worth it!

Wouldn't this be considered digitally altered bad HDR that should be in an appropriate forum? THis is way out there and lost all the range one would expect to see in a good HDR by your definition.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/208862-scarboro-bluffs.html

Or this thread where you added a cut on your face...I believe this would be a single tonemapped image that has been digitally altered as well. Its not realistic at all since you added that cut and its far from looking like a
real photo.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/hdr-discussions/211347-portrait-ala-dexter.html


Just saying....I am not confused on what HDR is and as much as I have tried standing up for you I am also getting a little bit bothered that everything posted has to meet your standards to be excepted here.
Its getting a bit old........you should practice what you preach sir.

quote taken out of your post


Bynx said:


> Thanks LaFoto. This reminds me that sometimes we take all this too seriously and its good to just goof off once in a while.




I think you need to remember your quote......now that its getting to serious


----------



## Bynx (Jul 17, 2012)

Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR. And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one. You have done that and now are going 10 steps back. In my opinion. Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.


----------



## dandaluzphotography (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
> The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR. And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one. You have done that and now are going 10 steps back. In my opinion. Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.



Angry Angry Angry.  Relax man.  You need to grab a, what'd you call 'em in your day?  A doobie?  A doobie and chill.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)

Bynx said:


> Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no.



Why would you even have to ask?



Bynx said:


> Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?


 My point is even you are guilty of doing this before and maybe this would help you remember that.






Bynx said:


> The portrait ala Dexter...again whats your point? Both of these examples are simply examples of HDR.



Point is this is not HDR it is a digitally altered image in your own words.





Bynx said:


> And there is a learning stage as you well know to creating a good one


. 

Yes so maybe you could go a little easier on some of the newer folks to the forum and allow them the learning curve.



Bynx said:


> Rest easy Vip I wont be commenting on your stuff again.



I am rested easy I just think its about time for you to stop taking this to seriously. Really a vignette in this image does not make this HDR a good or bad one?? Thats just silly. Its personal opinion and all the ingredients are all there for a nice HDR.

You can post if you like on in my threads I don't mind however I will do my homework and help bring you back to reality.


----------



## nineoneeighttony (Jul 17, 2012)

dandaluzphotography said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > Those are pretty old posts you dug up. Scarboro Bluffs I asked if the cartoon look was considered an HDR. I was told no. Then I posted the true HDR version. So whats your point?
> ...


lol, if he did that he might over process something


----------



## vipgraphx (Jul 17, 2012)




----------



## JAC526 (Jul 18, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > I like the image overall.  But I think that the processing does not make the place look peaceful.
> ...



Fair enough.  Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder as these HDR threads have certainly proven.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Jul 18, 2012)

Are we having this agument AGAIN?

This has gotten to the point that the debate is no longer about HDR rather, it is a personal battle disguised as an HDR conversation.
Let&#8217;s give it a break. There is nothing to be gained by the back and forth slaps.
Bottom line is, if everyone did their HDR&#8217;s exactly the same, what would be the point? And, and HDR done poorly is still and HDR. The debate is just plain silly and juvenile.


----------

