# A True HDR photo " The



## vipgraphx

So after my last posting of using color grading and applying it to photos there was a big issue about it.

I thought I would take the time to show a true HDR image. This is not tonemapped or I did not use photomatix or any other hdr software. This is three exposures that have been manually blended in photoshop with some masking to get all the range in the photo. By doing this process I have been able to make a photo realistic true HDR image. I have not altered any colors.

Keep in mind I enjoy many areas of HDR and processing, I don't look through only one door. I like to experiment with filters and colors and I love to process the heck out of an image. I do what I enjoy doing!

The Open Window:




The window by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

The reason I post this image is because based off what one individual said in a prior discussion this would only be the type of photo worthy of posting in this section, since it has not been tonemapped or processed to the point where it makes it "BAD".

Manually blending your own exposures takes way more time than using software to do it for you. The outcome is different as you can see here this photo actually looks like a photo and not a tonemapeed typical HDR photo that we see. By no means am I knocking those because I love them but, once my understanding of HDR was in question I thought what better way to answer with an actual image to show my understanding of HDR.


Cheers


----------



## Ernicus

Very cool, fwiw, I never doubted your understanding. lol.

Now...in true fashion of your style; cook that mother F'er up and show us what you love.


----------



## e.rose

Ernicus said:


> Very cool, fwiw, I never doubted your understanding. lol.
> 
> Now...in true fashion of your style; cook that mother F'er up and show us what you love.





Agreed!



> " I thought what better way to answer with an actual image"



Why feel the need to answer at all?

Opinions are like a**holes.... everyone's got one and most of 'em stink.


----------



## Bynx

Now thats a really good image. Photographic quality, with great detail in the light areas as well as the darks. Now why do you consider this boring?


----------



## vipgraphx

I don't consider this boring, but if every picture was like this on here then I would consider it boring. Make sense? I enjoy seeing what people can accomplish and I enjoy processing photos and altering them. If every painter was like picasso where would be? Thats my point in our discussion.


----------



## Bynx

I agree completely but I guess the HDR forum should be for the boring stuff. Thats why there is the other forum for Graphics Programs Photo Gallery. Its to show off those experimental things you we all do.


----------



## KongKurs

I like it.
And I really enjoy manually creating HDR photos in photoshop instead of leaving everything to the software, though you're right it takes an enormous lot of time. There's always some little corner of a layer mask that can be improved or blurred more


----------



## EDL

This picture is worthless without the original mid to compare it too.........  :mrgreen:


----------



## EDL

Oh, and that's one mighty fine shot...no, it's more than just fine, that's downright diggity!  :hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

VIPG doesn't know anything about HDR?????  Lol, puhlease! 



Would you mind posting up the three exposures so we can play too?


----------



## Steve5D

Ernicus said:


> Now...in true fashion of your style; cook that mother F'er up and show us what you love.


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> Now why do you consider this boring?



Who said it was boring?


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> I agree completely but I guess the HDR forum should be for the boring stuff. Thats why there is the other forum for Graphics Programs Photo Gallery. Its to show off those experimental things you we all do.



Again, nobody said it was boring...


----------



## Steve5D

My knowledge of Photoshop is pretty basic. I mean, _really _basic. Layers? Masks? Nope, never screwed around with them.

I have no problem letting the software do the work. Hell, photography isn't nearly what it used to be. Everything's changed, and darkroom skills have gone the way of the dinosaur...


----------



## inaka

I love the image you posted, but I have a feeling this thread will not end well...


----------



## nos33

I took the liberty and tonemapped it for you.

Your welcome.







haha I like yours better.  I just did this to stir the pot.


----------



## HughGuessWho

Wow. The details in that wooden shutter is AMAZING!!

BTW, I will take no side, however, I say, it's your recipe.... cook it as long as you want.


----------



## rexbobcat

I like the lines, organization, and shadows. Very neat.
But I do agree. I would hate to have this forum filled with just this type of HDR.

What fun would that be? I mean it's not like people in other galleries here go "sorry dude, your landscape's horizon is crooked. Take that crap somewhere else. We have standards here."


----------



## SCraig

There are two distinctly different schools of thought as to how HDR is presented.  One is the traditional use for HDR in generating images with higher dynamic range than is achievable with a camera alone.  The second is the garish oversaturated treatment.  While they may share the same roots and the same software they are as different in technique as film is to digital.  In my opinion they should be in different forum areas because they are radically different uses of a similar technique.

Personally, I do have an interest in HDR when it is used to improve dynamic range but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever for that "Other" treatment (I don't even know what it is called).  I would enjoy seeing true HDR renderings but not if I have to constantly wade through neon cars and green sunsets to see them.  I would personally love to see the HDR forum split into two areas of interest so that they didn't butt heads and everyone could pursue their own interests.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

inaka said:


> I love the image you posted, but I have a feeling this thread will not end well...



lmao


----------



## Steve5D

If doing a "true" HDR is so time consuming, I have to believe that it wouldn't enjoy a lot of postings, and the postings it _would _have would be from the same people.

Now _that _would be boring...


----------



## EDL

SCraig said:


> There are two distinctly different schools of thought as to how HDR is presented.  One is the traditional use for HDR in generating images with higher dynamic range than is achievable with a camera alone.  The second is the garish oversaturated treatment.  While they may share the same roots and the same software they are as different in technique as film is to digital.  In my opinion they should be in different forum areas because they are radically different uses of a similar technique.
> 
> Personally, I do have an interest in HDR when it is used to improve dynamic range but I have absolutely no interest whatsoever for that "Other" treatment (I don't even know what it is called).  I would enjoy seeing true HDR renderings but not if I have to constantly wade through neon cars and green sunsets to see them.  I would personally love to see the HDR forum split into two areas of interest so that they didn't butt heads and everyone could pursue their own interests.



I understand where SCraig is going with this, but to me it's no different than wading through all the photos in the General category and seeing everything from totally blown out crap to the OMG, that's awesome shots.  The title alone gives no clue as to how good, or bad the photo is and in fact, what is "good" and what is "bad" is really a subjective opinion anyway.  

If we're going toward some kind of "vote" thing here, my vote is to leave it as is.  It seems we can't even agree on what is or isn't HDR to begin with.  If anything I'd rather see a new category for "Tone Mapped" images for super saturated single shot, non-HDR images.


----------



## fjrabon

I've only ever heard one person who only referred to manually multiple exposure blended images as HDR. I've talked to hundreds and hundreds of photographers who consider photomatix type pictures to be HDR. 

Sure, I agree that images that have only been tone mapped shouldn't be called HDR, but saying an image that has been created from multiple exposures but also tone mapped shouldn't be in this forum is just absurd. This forum basically would serve no purpose other than to satisfy one poster's weird obsession. Because I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen people manually blend exposures on here. 

Funny thing is, I do it all the time for my real estate work (my agents want as realistic as possible). Op did a very good job. But yeah, it's really time consuming to do it this way. Especially if you use more than three exposures. Requiring that this be the type of HDR that this forum is for would essentially kill the HDR forum. And the processed or whatever you want to call it forum would take over. 

Making this only be for this type of image would like having a tilt shift only gallery. Completely pointless because so few people shoot tilt shift.


----------



## Bynx

While Vip may have used Photoshop layers to create this image, the use of Photomatix is much more sensible to use, since its a time saver. Teaching people to use it to create an HDR image is preferred over having them use it to create images which arent HDR and posting them here. SCraig is absolutely right and there should be another thread where images that dont follow the definition of HDR should be posted there. Whats wrong with making that split if some dont want to wallow through the crap to see a good image? Its not preventing the crap from being seen, its just keeping it together for you guys that like that stuff, myself included. But at least I would know what I can expect when I open one thread or the other and choose which I want to look at. Im not interested in looking at cats, and I dont think cats should be posted in the HDR forum. And seeing cats there is just as wrong as seeing the crap there. A place for everything and everything in its place. Simple.


----------



## Steve5D

EDL said:


> If anything I'd rather see a new category for "Tone Mapped" images for super saturated single shot, non-HDR images.



I would welcome the creation of such a forum...


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> Im not interested in looking at cats, and I dont think cats should be posted in the HDR forum. And seeing cats there is just as wrong as seeing the crap there. A place for everything and everything in its place. Simple.



What if the image of the cat is an HDR image?

Its inclusion in the HDR forum would not only be appropriate, but would fit the stringent guidelines by which you wish others would post...


----------



## fjrabon

What is the definition of HDR?

You keep talking like it's some firm, neat box.  If the saturation levels have at all been increased, is that no longer a TRUE HDR?  If it's been sharpened?  Both those have additional processing past simply blending the exposures.  According to you, that would make them no longer TRUE HDR.

What about images where the shadows have been dodged and the highlights burned for more detail?  

At some point you're going to have to create arbitrary lines, that nobody would ever follow.  Every photographer I know would call both a multiexposure and tone mapped image an HDR image, and they would call what's in the OP a HDR image.

And just because other techniques have also been performed doesn't make it not HDR.  If it has been created from multiple exposures to give a greater than normally possible dynamic range, then it's HDR.  Regardless of what else happens after the fact.  That is way more simple than have like 3 different galleries according to your arbitrary definitions of what amount of processing is too much to qualify as TRUE HDR.  A place for everything and everything in its place is not simple when it creates like 30 galleries, with stringent, yet arbitrary lines for what goes in it.  

I'm also sure that the moderators and site managers don't want 21039847239845 different galleries that make all these absurd qualifications.  I mean realistically people don't even post in the correct forum half the time now, when they're relatively simply and broadly categorized.  You see HDR in general, you see street photography in landscape, etc.  Can you imagine if we had 3 separate galleries for tone mapped only, TRUE HDR and whatever else is in between that?  

You do realize you're the old man shaking his fist at the clouds, right?


----------



## dandaluzphotography

fjrabon said:


> You do realize you're the old man shaking his fist at the clouds, right?




I hate appear to instigate, but this line is classic.  lmao.

Also, that's a great description of what HDR is.  I agree totally.  Thanks!


----------



## Compaq

What I'm interesting in knowing, is where people place their "natural/surreal" line. I've had comments that much of my HDR shots (tonemapped) are overdone, yet I disagree. I consider some subjects to "need" a little more heavy processing, for me to truly like them. The thread I made with the digger, for example.




Gravemaskin 3 r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr


It wouldn't be the same if I aimed for a realistic look in PM, or manually blended the exposures. Then there's landscaping. I prefer these to be more natural, yet not "boringly" natural, for example:




Valen og tre r by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr

and




Sola bak regnbogen 1 by Anders Myhre Brakestad, on Flickr



Overdone is a relative concept, in my personal opinion. The processing in the digger shot wouldn't be very nice for a landscape, but I think it works for the digger shot. At least that's the way I think.

No matter how you process, there should be a checklist in your mind. Check for halos, check for ghosting, check for weird tonal value relationships (shadow area lighter than nearby non-shadow area, for example). Just making sure these aren't present, would result in a better picture, even if the processing might be over the top for the subject. That's what most beginners fail on, in terms of processing. 

Not quite sure if this is relevant to the thread, but those are the thoughts I sat with after reading.


----------



## Steve5D

Personally, when it comes to HDR and tone-mapping (two things which I consider related), I lean towards a preference for a heavier edit as opposed to a lighter edit.

Throw 'em in the oven an' let 'em cook!

Of course, anything can be done too often but, if something's done well, I'll look at it all day long.

Oh, and that photo of the digger is just _sick_. I don't care if it's the result of tone-mapping, HDR, or conjuring up a spell with chicken bones, blood and spit, it's dynamite...


----------



## Bynx

Its clear what HDR is. Its because you think it isnt clear is the problem here. An image made up of TWO or MORE images taken with different shutter speeds so the total dynamic range is greater than either of the shots with which it is made. If the processing is done with some finesse then you end up with a great image which should look better than any single image taken of the scene. Any further processing in Photoshop, which is always necessary after going through Photomatix, to improve the clarity, sharpness, or saturation of color is just part of the process. I guess the problem we have is trying to split what is just poorly processed versus what is processed for some output which is not so much HDR as a creation by the OP. Its those 'creations' like Vips chilli truck that should be in their own folder. Meanwhile HDR images that are just poorly processed can get the info on how to process them properly. To give out that info it would be nice to have a standard practice of posting the middle shot along with the HDR image so everyone can see where it started from. Im guilty for not doing this, but its always a good idea, especially for those that say the image doesnt look like an HDR, or that HDR processing wasnt necessary.

Anders, you know Im a big fan of your processing. But relative to a 'clean' HDR image that isnt 'overcooked' those images would go to the Tone Mapped folder. And that folder isnt a bad place. Its just a different place and would be in company with similar images put there by people with similar interest.


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> Its clear what HDR is. Its because you think it isnt clear is the problem here. An image made up of TWO or MORE images taken with different shutter speeds so the total dynamic range is greater than either of the shots with which it is made. If the processing is done with some finesse then you end up with a great image which should look better than any single image taken of the scene. Any further processing in Photoshop, which is always necessary after going through Photomatix, to improve the clarity, sharpness, or saturation of color is just part of the process.



So, if one uses the same shutter speed, but a different aperture, that wouldn't fall under your heading HDR? 

And I'm still waiting for clarification on the whole cat issuse...



> I guess the problem we have is trying to split what is just poorly processed versus what is processed for some output which is not so much HDR as a creation by the OP. Its those 'creations' like Vips chilli truck that should be in their own folder.



See, that's the thing, Bynx. "We" don't have a problem with it. _You _do.

You're demanding that everyone adhere to the criteria that you deem appropriate. If there's no specific folder for tone-mapped images, I'd be willing to bit that you're the only person who really has an issue with them being posted here. I haven't seen another soul complain about it. One would need to wonder if you've only complained about it here (which is getting old, by the way), or if you've petitioned management about the creation of a tone-mapped forum. If you have petitioned them for that, and they've deemed it unnecessary, you really need to just accept that and move on... 



> Meanwhile HDR images that are just poorly processed can get the info on how to process them properly. To give out that info it would be nice to have a standard practice of posting the middle shot along with the HDR image so everyone can see where it started from. Im guilty for not doing this, but its always a good idea, especially for those that say the image doesnt look like an HDR, or that HDR processing wasnt necessary.



If someone is specifically asking for a critique, I can see the value of providing the middle image. If someone is just posting their photo to share it, there's no reason to. Why should we stop at doing this for HDR images? Maybe we should demand that every photo posted anywhere on The Photo Forum be accompanied by the original, unprocessed image?  

For instance, on my shot of the USS Recruit (the one in which you re-edited with a stolen picture of a sky), I wasn't asking for any critique whatsoever; I just wanted to share the image. Someone commented on the sky, so I asked about how to fix it. You chimed in with a stolen sky. That was both unwarranted and unwanted, as you didn't offer a single suggestion of how to fix it. You could've said "Well, I stole a picture of the sky I found on the internet and dropped it into your image" instead of asking for the original images. Why didn't you provide a separate image of the photo you stole, with the ship in it, to show what that originally looked like?


----------



## Bynx

Steve, unfortunately you are too obtuse to deal with. First off if you take multiple images with the same shutter speed and change the aperture you sure wouldnt have an HDR image. You would have a bunch of images which wouldnt fit. So you dont understand the basics of photography as well as HDR. As for the cat issue again you are being stupid. Of course if the image was an HDR shot of a cat then it would be ok. Just not a single shot of the cat. And since I dont like cats I just used that as an example. Now is that too hard to understand? Yes I do have a problem with seeing Vips truck in the HDR forum. If you understood HDR or knew how to create one instead of jumping back at me for trying to see things cleaned up things would be better. Why not spend your time learning how to make one then come back and mouth off. There IS a folder for over processed tone mapped images. GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY. How many times do you have to read that for it to sink in. Again you are being obtuse. The thing with HDR images is that sometimes its hard to understand why it was shot as an HDR until you see the 0EV photo and see the difference. But if you knew anything about HDR you might know this. As for your boat shot, you childishly make reference to stolen 3 times. One pic is worth a lot of explanation. I quickly dropped a sky in that suited your image. I didnt know how obtuse you are and so assumed you would see that just by dropping in a real looking sky was all that was necessary to convert a bad image into one that wasnt so bad. What a waste of time that was. Now you have the opportunity to rant at me some more or go out with your camera and shoot an HDR or even better, pick up a book on the principles of photography and increase the things of which you are unaware like aperture and its effect on depth of field.


----------



## fjrabon

the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR.  Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures.  However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery.  You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it.  There's just not.

Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it.  I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it.  If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).  Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.


----------



## mjhoward

What you have done is not really a HDR photo, it is a composite.  Technically, when it comes to actual HDR photos, none of them are viewable on a monitor which is why they must be tone-mapped.  The tonemapped version is acually LDR, not HDR.  Regardless, I really like your photo and it looks much better than any tone-mapped version of it that I could imagine.


----------



## Bynx

Steve5D said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely but I guess the HDR forum should be for the boring stuff. Thats why there is the other forum for Graphics Programs Photo Gallery. Its to show off those experimental things you we all do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nobody said it was boring...
Click to expand...


It was a conversation between Vip and myself. He understands. Whether you do or not.....well its understood that you dont. Does the word obtuse mean anything? Its a shame Steve because it would have been so much fun helping you better your photographic, Photoshop and HDR skills. Maybe there is someone here that will do that. Just not me.


----------



## Bynx

nos33 said:


> I took the liberty and tonemapped it for you.
> 
> Your welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haha I like yours better.  I just did this to stir the pot.



Hey nos, while you may have added more tone mapping the image still falls into the realm of HDR. It doesnt look garrish, or too much. It looks like it may have been taken on a not so dark full moonlit nite.


----------



## pixmedic

I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx,  sorry 'bout that.


----------



## fjrabon

pixmedic said:


> I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx,  sorry 'bout that.



The problem with what you just said is that those two things are not mutually exclusive.  An image can be both created from multiple exposures, and heavily tone mapped.  EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER I'VE EVER KNOWN will refer to heavily tonemapped images that were created from multiple exposures as HDR.  However, that apparently doesn't work for Bynx.  We need to create these rules that are at odds with how almost every book on HDR processing uses the term, just to satisfy Bynx, and confuse everybody else. 

Bynx has admitted that some level of tonemapping is 'acceptable' by him, the great arbiter of TRUE HDR.  He pretends as if there is an easy line to draw here, and that it is quite obvious to him exactly where that line is.  However, he has given no criteria, other than vague notions like 'garrish' and 'cartoonish'.  He refuses to admit that there is no clear way to figure this out.  No firm way for a moderator to say "oh this passes the X threshold for HDR and must go in the graphics programs photo gallery."


----------



## Bynx

fjrabon said:


> the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR.  Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures.  However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery.  You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it.  There's just not.
> 
> Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it.  I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it.  If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).  Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.



Im sure they have been monitoring this closely and instead of stepping in and doing it they are making the same assumption I am.....that people like yourself are too stupid to know which folder to put their photo in, so to keep it easy for you they just want to use the same pot so you dont get confused. It does solve seeing a repetition of "that doesnt belong here it should be in the other folder". I wonder why change is so hard to accept. Why is adding a new folder so difficult to accept or understand? I say this as I shake my fist at another really neat looking cloud that is floating by.


----------



## fjrabon

Bynx said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is this: you've stated that any image that combines two or more exposures is HDR.  Under this criteria, all the heavily tonemapped images are HDR, just as long as they used at least two exposures.  However, you separately created an exception to your otherwise clean, clear rule, when you said that 'overcooked' images with 'too much' processing are not TRUE HDR and should go in some sort of tone mapped gallery.  You keep pretending like there is some sort of clear, firm guideline of what would qualify as 'poorly processed HDR' or whatever you want to call it.  There's just not.
> 
> Like Steve said, if you think there should be a separate gallery, ask the moderators to create it.  I think most people would disagree that there is any need for this, but fine ask for it.  If they don't, then I guess you have every right to keep being the lone soldier fighting the good fight for TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).  Keep shaking that fist at those clouds, maybe one day they'll listen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure they have been monitoring this closely and instead of stepping in and doing it they are making the same assumption I am.....that people like yourself are too stupid to know which folder to put their photo in, so to keep it easy for you they just want to use the same pot so you dont get confused. It does solve seeing a repetition of "that doesnt belong here it should be in the other folder". I wonder why change is so hard to accept. Why is adding a new folder so difficult to accept or understand? I say this as I shake my fist at another really neat looking cloud that is floating by.
Click to expand...


Really, you're calling people stupid because they don't agree with you that 'garrish' and 'cartoonish' aren't clear guidelines as to how much processing is too much processing to qualify as TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx)?


----------



## Bynx

pixmedic said:


> I cant really comment on the HDR part of this...discussion? because I know very little about HDR photography. That being said, I think the point Bynx is trying to make is that he doesnt need to petition the mods for another gallery, because tone mapped and heavily processed images could easily fit onto the GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY, leaving the HDR gallery for multiple image photos. If I have misunderstood your intention Bynx,  sorry 'bout that.



Thanks pixmedic. Im glad the light is shining somewhere.


----------



## Bynx

I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.

An HDR image is just an ordinary plain image that has a greater dynamic range than a single shot which does make it special and deserving its own thread. Its unique and very limited in how it looks. Thats all. Why do you refuse to use a thread already set up for your creations? They might have started out as HDR images but through processing have gone beyond that to just digitally altered images and should be filed as such. The original aim of HDR was to create a more lifelike view of a scene that couldnt be shot in a single shot. Its intention wasnt to burn the eyeballs with blazing colors or to illustrate comic books.

Would a mod please step in and do something? Id prefer to help someone along and maybe get some help form someone than for this bickering to continue. It doesnt do any of us or this site any good. But it would be nice to have an HDR forum where the images look like really good photos and illustrate to those who think HDR is crap that good processing will produce a great image.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

inaka said:
			
		

> have a feeling this thread will not end well...



Your words were prophetic. Lol.


----------



## fjrabon

Bynx said:


> I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.



Your combination of childishness and old man grumpiness is indeed rare sir.  I commend you on finding a way to be this insufferable, it must truly take work.


----------



## fjrabon

dandaluzphotography said:


> inaka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have a feeling this thread will not end well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words were prophetic. Lol.
Click to expand...


It's not particularly hard to predict:

Does Bynx have an opinion that anybody disagrees with?  Yes?  It will get locked fairly soon by the mods as he starts calling people names like a small child that hasn't gotten his way.

there's been like 4-5 threads in the last few weeks that have been locked because bynx threw hissy fits and started calling people names.


----------



## SCraig

I can't say where the line should be drawn, however I can say with certainty where the extremes are.  Anyone can look at the majority of the images and decided immediately where they belong.  If they can, if the image is so close it could go either way, then does it really matter?

As I said earlier I'd love to play with HDR and get some assistance with it but I'm not interested in that overcooked, oversaturated "Stuff" and I don't really want input from people who generate it.  There way of generating HDR is not something that interests me whatsoever and it would be difficult for me to accept, or even bother trying, any of their recommendations as to how to improve any HDR that I gneerated.  There are exceptions, of course, because there are those here who are obviously capable of creating either.  The OP of this topic is a perfect example.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

Obtuse is such a silly word.


----------



## fjrabon

SCraig said:


> I can't say where the line should be drawn, however I can say with certainty where the extremes are.  Anyone can look at the majority of the images and decided immediately where they belong.  If they can, if the image is so close it could go either way, then does it really matter?
> 
> As I said earlier I'd love to play with HDR and get some assistance with it but I'm not interested in that overcooked, oversaturated "Stuff" and I don't really want input from people who generate it.  There way of generating HDR is not something that interests me whatsoever and it would be difficult for me to accept, or even bother trying, any of their recommendations as to how to improve any HDR that I gneerated.  There are exceptions, of course, because there are those here who are obviously capable of creating either.  The OP of this topic is a perfect example.



I get that to an extent, but having a different gallery won't prevent that, as a large portion of the posters read the forums via the 'new post' search button and they would still make comments on your more moderate HDR image (or whatever we are going to call only slightly tonemapped images).  

This being a public forum, there's no way you can prevent those whose taste is different from yours from commenting on your images.  You just have to take it in stride and focus on the comments of those whose tastes align with yours.


----------



## pixmedic

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> Obtuse is such a silly word.



silly? personally, i find a well rounded vocabulary refreshing. 

Obtuse, adjective
definition 1- not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

I would say the word conveyed the feeling quite adequately and was well used. 
Im not saying I agree with the statement, with my limited knowledge on the subject, im just saying the word was well chosen for the implied feeling. 
 

 [h=1][/h]


----------



## SCraig

fjrabon said:


> I get that to an extent, but having a different gallery won't prevent that, as a large portion of the posters read the forums via the 'new post' search button and they would still make comments on your more moderate HDR image (or whatever we are going to call only slightly tonemapped images).
> 
> This being a public forum, there's no way you can prevent those whose taste is different from yours from commenting on your images.  You just have to take it in stride and focus on the comments of those whose tastes align with yours.



You're right, and I agree with that.  However I think, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the majority of the posts would fall into the proper category and people would tend to take note of things.  At least most of the time.  Much the same as the black and white forum coexists with the other forums since there is overlap among forum members.  Some people do shoot both and they are smart enough to figure out which forum area their shots belong in.  I think that having two HDR forum areas would result in similar use.


----------



## BlueMeanieTSi

pixmedic said:


> BlueMeanieTSi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obtuse is such a silly word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silly? personally, i find a well rounded vocabulary refreshing.
> 
> Obtuse, adjective
> definition 1- not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
> 
> I would say the word conveyed the feeling quite adequately and was well used.
> Im not saying I agree with the statement, with my limited knowledge on the subject, im just saying the word was well chosen for the implied feeling.
Click to expand...


It is a silly sounding word.


----------



## fjrabon

Bynx said:


> I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.
> 
> An HDR image is just an ordinary plain image that has a greater dynamic range than a single shot which does make it special and deserving its own thread. Its unique and very limited in how it looks. Thats all.



The problem here is that you've already stated you're okay with some tonemapping as long as it's 'light'.  That contradicts what you just said.  Even a moderately tonemapped image isn't "just an ordinary, plain image that has a greater dynamic range than a single shot"

If this is so clear, then why do you keep giving contradictory definitions of what TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx) is?


----------



## pixmedic

BlueMeanieTSi said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueMeanieTSi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obtuse is such a silly word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> silly? personally, i find a well rounded vocabulary refreshing.
> 
> Obtuse, adjective
> definition 1- not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
> 
> I would say the word conveyed the feeling quite adequately and was well used.
> Im not saying I agree with the statement, with my limited knowledge on the subject, im just saying the word was well chosen for the implied feeling.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a silly sounding word.
Click to expand...


oh. yes.  obtuse. OBTUSE. obtuuuuuuuse. silly indeed. 
i still like the fact it got used though.


----------



## vipgraphx

Ok, I think I have a very simple solution. Why not just label your posting with

*Photorealistic HDR* "then your subject"

*Saturated HDR* "then your subject"

*Overcooked HDR* "then your subject"

*Black and white HDR* "then your subject"

*Heavily processed HDR *"then your subject"

*Faux HDR* "then your subject" (this would be single images that either have been tonemapped of manually adjusting exposures to then use to generate an hdr)

It might take time getting use to always adding a HDR category to your title but at least it would let folks know what to expect before they look. 

The problem I still see here is that if someone who does not like HDR  happens to be curious as curiosity killed the cat and decided to then bash on a the photo, would then make it all pointless. 

Now you take a guy like me who likes *ALL* areas of HDR, I would enter every posting to take a look and see if I like, if I could help if help was wanted. I am not prejudice to any one area of HDR.

The flip sid of this would be that if someone lets say posts with a title like *Photorealistic HDR *and you are trying to help and edit a photo of theirs. It would be important to keep it in those same guidelines.

If someone one posted in *Overcooked HDR* then there should be no negative comments like this is way to overcooked! 

*Will this really happen probably not but it is a start!*


----------



## Steve5D

fjrabon said:


> dandaluzphotography said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inaka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have a feeling this thread will not end well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words were prophetic. Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not particularly hard to predict:
> 
> Does Bynx have an opinion that anybody disagrees with?  Yes?  It will get locked fairly soon by the mods as he starts calling people names like a small child that hasn't gotten his way.
> 
> there's been like 4-5 threads in the last few weeks that have been locked because bynx threw hissy fits and started calling people names.
Click to expand...


And it's an absolute shame. There have been some wonderful images posted here but, because they don't fall exactly in line with what Bynx wants to see, he acts immaturely. Yesterday he called me a dickhead (that was edited out by a moderator). Nice to see that, today, I at least have some company in being called "stupid".

And, just because I feel like it, here's a nice tone-mapped image:, presented for the enjoyment of almost everyone:


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> I do apologize fjrabon. I shouldnt have called you stupid. Mentally challenged is the politically correct term.
> 
> An HDR image is just an ordinary plain image that has a greater dynamic range than a single shot which does make it special and deserving its own thread. Its unique and very limited in how it looks. Thats all. Why do you refuse to use a thread already set up for your creations? They might have started out as HDR images but through processing have gone beyond that to just digitally altered images and should be filed as such. The original aim of HDR was to create a more lifelike view of a scene that couldnt be shot in a single shot. Its intention wasnt to burn the eyeballs with blazing colors or to illustrate comic books.
> 
> *Would a mod please step in and do something? *Id prefer to help someone along and maybe get some help form someone than for this bickering to continue. It doesnt do any of us or this site any good. But it would be nice to have an HDR forum where the images look like really good photos and illustrate to those who think HDR is crap that good processing will produce a great image.



Yeah, like show Bynx the door for a while...


----------



## Steve5D

SCraig said:


> As I said earlier I'd love to play with HDR and get some assistance with it but I'm not interested in that overcooked, oversaturated "Stuff" and I don't really want input from people who generate it.  There way of generating HDR is not something that interests me whatsoever and it would be difficult for me to accept, or even bother trying, any of their recommendations as to how to improve any HDR that I gneerated.  There are exceptions, of course, because there are those here who are obviously capable of creating either.  The OP of this topic is a perfect example.



You're making the assumption, then, that people who post the heavily-cooked stuff are unable to provide input, and that's kinda' silly. Just because they post one thing doesn't mean they don't know how to do the other. Making that assumption could cost you some valuable input...


----------



## Steve5D

vipgraphx said:


> Ok, I think I have a very simple solution. Why not just label your posting with
> 
> *Photorealistic HDR* "then your subject"
> 
> *Saturated HDR* "then your subject"
> 
> *Overcooked HDR* "then your subject"
> 
> *Black and white HDR* "then your subject"
> 
> *Heavily processed HDR *"then your subject"
> 
> *Faux HDR* "then your subject" (this would be single images that either have been tonemapped of manually adjusting exposures to then use to generate an hdr)
> 
> It might take time getting use to always adding a HDR category to your title but at least it would let folks know what to expect before they look.
> 
> The problem I still see here is that if someone who does not like HDR  happens to be curious as curiosity killed the cat and decided to then bash on a the photo, would then make it all pointless.
> 
> Now you take a guy like me who likes *ALL* areas of HDR, I would enter every posting to take a look and see if I like, if I could help if help was wanted. I am not prejudice to any one area of HDR.
> 
> The flip sid of this would be that if someone lets say posts with a title like *Photorealistic HDR *and you are trying to help and edit a photo of theirs. It would be important to keep it in those same guidelines.
> 
> If someone one posted in *Overcooked HDR* then there should be no negative comments like this is way to overcooked!
> 
> *Will this really happen probably not but it is a start!*



Why not?

Because all of that is only to appease the desires of one member here; a member who's chosen to act like an immature child in his dealings with others.

For that reason, alone, I would not adhere to such phrases in my titles...


----------



## fjrabon

SCraig said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get that to an extent, but having a different gallery won't prevent that, as a large portion of the posters read the forums via the 'new post' search button and they would still make comments on your more moderate HDR image (or whatever we are going to call only slightly tonemapped images).
> 
> This being a public forum, there's no way you can prevent those whose taste is different from yours from commenting on your images.  You just have to take it in stride and focus on the comments of those whose tastes align with yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, and I agree with that.  However I think, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the majority of the posts would fall into the proper category and people would tend to take note of things.  At least most of the time.  Much the same as the black and white forum coexists with the other forums since there is overlap among forum members.  Some people do shoot both and they are smart enough to figure out which forum area their shots belong in.  I think that having two HDR forum areas would result in similar use.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't think it would help.  Go to the B+W gallery and read through threads.  On about half of them you'll find at least one C+C of "I think this would work better as a color image".  

Even if we labelled things as *overcooked HDR* I can guarantee you that posters who don't like that style would still come in and say "I think this is wildly overcooked to the point of being tacky!"  And if you labelled it *photorealistic HDR *you'd have people come in and do edits that are wildly overbaked.  

Probably the easiest way to deal with it is to simply shrug those types of comments off.  That will likely work much better than trying to construct a digital fence around images and yelling "get off my lawn!"


----------



## Bynx

fjrabon, I take back being pollitically correct. You really are an idiot. All HDR images are tone mapped otherwise there would be no HDR image to see. Its just when they are so heavily tone mapped or its a single file thats tone mapped and lumped together with a good HDR image that I think isnt right. Vip you are making divisions of bad HDR images with too many categories. And when I say bad HDR I dont mean bad image. The HDR forum should have only Photorealistic images as per your first category. That goes for both b&w and color since the idea is to have a broader dynamic range. Saturated HDR, Overcooked HDR,  and Heavily processed HDR, all fall under the same category.....Digitally altered images. Now that is really simple. Thank you for clearing that up.

As for your door Steve, its not a good example for HDR because there is NO DYNAMIC RANGE. But you have still managed to fill in the shadows and create halos. It would still go in the HDR forum though and through advice from others you would eventually catch on how to do it right. That is of course if it wasnt just a single file you monkeyed with.


----------



## SCraig

Steve5D said:


> You're making the assumption, then, that people who post the heavily-cooked stuff are unable to provide input, and that's kinda' silly. Just because they post one thing doesn't mean they don't know how to do the other. Making that assumption could cost you some valuable input...


Possibly, but I'm willing to take that chance.


----------



## Gaerek

True HDR = Image with a Dynamic Range higher than what could ordinarily be captured by a sensor.

HDR is not a technique. It's not a style. It simply describes the dynamic range of a shot. Whether you got this high dynamic range through tonemapping, manually blending, or one of the many other techniques is irrelevant.

If you don't like heavily tonemapped images (and I'm not a fan, but there are some I really enjoy) that's fine, it's your opinion. But they are STILL HDR's.

The only image that people routinely call HDR that is not is the "faux HDR" that requires a single RAW shot, made into multiple shots of differing exposure, then re-blended together.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard thing to understand.


----------



## inaka

dandaluzphotography said:


> inaka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have a feeling this thread will not end well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words were prophetic. Lol.
Click to expand...


I saw this train coming a mile away...

See, here is the issue. _*Photography is a technical art*_. Thus, you're always going to have those who appreciate more of the technical "purity" of photography, clashing with those who prefer the more "artistic" nature of photography. 

I think the key that each side needs to remember is that there is no right vs. wrong, only preference. 
And once one adopts that principle, I think the discussions here would be far less combative.

Just my take.


----------



## Steve5D

Bynx said:


> Steve, unfortunately you are too obtuse to deal with. First off if you take multiple images with the same shutter speed and change the aperture you sure wouldnt have an HDR image. You would have a bunch of images which wouldnt fit. So you dont understand the basics of photography as well as HDR. As for the cat issue again you are being stupid. Of course if the image was an HDR shot of a cat then it would be ok. Just not a single shot of the cat. And since I dont like cats I just used that as an example. Now is that too hard to understand? Yes I do have a problem with seeing Vips truck in the HDR forum. If you understood HDR or knew how to create one instead of jumping back at me for trying to see things cleaned up things would be better. Why not spend your time learning how to make one then come back and mouth off. There IS a folder for over processed tone mapped images. GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY. How many times do you have to read that for it to sink in. Again you are being obtuse. The thing with HDR images is that sometimes its hard to understand why it was shot as an HDR until you see the 0EV photo and see the difference. But if you knew anything about HDR you might know this. As for your boat shot, you childishly make reference to stolen 3 times. One pic is worth a lot of explanation. I quickly dropped a sky in that suited your image. I didnt know how obtuse you are and so assumed you would see that just by dropping in a real looking sky was all that was necessary to convert a bad image into one that wasnt so bad. What a waste of time that was. Now you have the opportunity to rant at me some more or go out with your camera and shoot an HDR or even better, pick up a book on the principles of photography and increase the things of which you are unaware like aperture and its effect on depth of field.



Just a few points before I write the moderators:

1. As to the sky, you admitted that the photo of the sky wasn't yours, yet you failed to provide a proper credit. That's theft.

2. I stated, very early on, that I was quite new at HDR. Perhaps you can now whine about the need for a separate forum for newbies to HDR.

3. The description for the "GRAPHICS PROGRAMS PHOTO GALLERY" specifically lists "HDR", but not "tone mapped":




> *Graphics Programs and Photo Gallery*
> 
> A place to show off your post processing skills, with explanations on how you achieved the results, _*including specialty images such as HDR.*_   Share information and techniques using Adobe's Photoshop and other popular graphics software.




Frankly, that's a far more appropriate section for _HDR_ than it is for tone-mapped images.

4. Name calling is immature, and renders anything and everything of value you might have to offer meaningless, because no one pays attention to a whiner.

Now, I have to be honest, I enjoy posters like you. You make me laugh. Watching you blow a gasket, over and over, as you've done here is funny.

Keep it up...


----------



## fjrabon

Bynx said:


> fjrabon, I take back being pollitically correct. You really are an idiot. All HDR images are tone mapped otherwise there would be no HDR image to see. Its just when they are so heavily tone mapped or its a single file thats tone mapped and lumped together with a good HDR image that I think isnt right. Vip you are making divisions of bad HDR images with too many categories. And when I say bad HDR I dont mean bad image. The HDR forum should have only Photorealistic images as per your first category. That goes for both b&w and color since the idea is to have a broader dynamic range. Saturated HDR, Overcooked HDR,  and Heavily processed HDR, all fall under the same category.....Digitally altered images. Now that is really simple. Thank you for clearing that up.



The point you still refuse to understand is that there simply isn't a non-arbitrary way to decide what is too much or too little tone mapping to qualify as TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).  You've not given any sort of clear cut guideline other than your own personal taste of 'garrish' and 'cartoonish'.  I hate to repeat myself, but it's a point you seem to either be unable or unwilling to grasp.  You've given several contradictory definitions of what you consider to be TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx).  

You know what's really simple?  Any image made from multiple exposures blended together being allowed as HDR.  That's simple.  Guess what, that's more or less what we have now, and I'd be willing to bet it's what we will continue to have, as I don't see the mods feeling any need to satisfy your hissy fit by instituting your 'rules'.  The only way you'd be satisfied is if you got to be the personal arbiter of what was allowed in the TRUE HDR (copyright Bynx) gallery.


----------



## pixmedic

Why cant we all just get along?
Like many forums  and other places where people gather to express ideas and opinions, I think there is some expectation by the management of self policing. 
Certainly we can all see where not doing so is going to lead. (hopefully). When locking threads that get out of control, or deleting certain comments is no longer 
a deterrent to the constant barrage of insults and high school drama, I foresee a point where the Moderators will just start deleting whole threads at the first sign
of trouble.  I don't think anyone really wants that.  The more we censure and police our own spiteful rhetoric , the LESS the moderators will have to, And the MORE freedom we will have here to express ourselves.  just saying.   


:cheer:


----------



## vipgraphx

WOW folks after all this I think we need to all sit down and ponder for a bit this would be a great time  to post this picture




bench to study by VIPGraphX, on Flickr

*5 exposures, merged in photomatix, post processed in photoshop and nik color effex.*


----------



## inaka

vipgraphx said:


> WOW folks after all this I think we need to all sit down and ponder for a bit this would be a great time  to post this picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bench to study by VIPGraphX, on Flickr
> 
> *5 exposures, merged in photomatix, post processed in photoshop and nik color effex.*


Me likely. Nice shot.


----------



## Bynx

If nothing else comes of this thread at least there are a couple of good HDRs posted. The last one could have used 7 exposures, one on each end of the scale. But it doesnt look bad.


----------



## inaka

Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:




Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr

Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
Just wondering...


----------



## Compaq

For the love of God, fjrabon, would you stop the "copyright bynx" thing? You come off as an a.hole. Truly,  you speak of how immature Bynx is acting. Act like an adult yourself, then.

Some folks are HDR purists, lets just respect that. I agree that images which totally rely on its processing, are indeed not "true HDRs". Don't get me wrong, I'm aware of the "definition" that many people here have written. Read this for more information about what it truly is: HDR images in photography - About Dynamic Range, Tone Mapping and HDR Imaging for Photography 

Vip's picture rely on its heavy processing (in my eyes). The same does my digger. These are not HDR shots the way the technique was supposed to be used. Bynx has already explained its initial use. At a certain point, the original photograph stops being a photograph, and a piece of digital art. I suppose it's up to each and everyone to set that line themselves. Photojournalists have extremely strict rules for what they can use. Us private people, shooting for ourselves, define our own line. I'm willing to admit that my final image may not be classified as a "photograph". Maybe "digtal art rooting from photographs" is more correct. I don't know.

The whole debate it pointless at the given point. You people need to take in what Bynx is saying. There are truths there. And Steven, you claim to be a beginner with HDR imagery, yet you debate as if you know much and more, claiming things to be truths. Calling theft, that's just plain stupid, and totally beside the point of the thread.


----------



## dandaluzphotography

inaka said:


> Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr
> 
> Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
> Just wondering...




I like it.  Nice!


----------



## vipgraphx

inaka said:


> Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr
> 
> Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
> Just wondering...



I would not say this is over cook but its all relative right?


----------



## Compaq

Overcooked relative to what?


----------



## Steve5D

Compaq said:


> For the love of God, fjrabon, would you stop the "copyright bynx" thing? You come off as an a.hole.



Agreed.

It should really be "*© Bynx*"...



> You people need to take in what Bynx is saying.



No, we really don't. When he starts calling people "stupid" and "dickhead", it's safe to rightly assume that he has nothing of value to offer...



> And Steven, you claim to be a beginner with HDR imagery, yet you debate as if you know much and more, claiming things to be truths.



What have I claimed are "truths"? 

Link(s), please.

If you look back, I'm not debating what does and doesn't look good in images or why. What I'm debating is the apparent belief by Bynx that he reigns supreme here and should decide what does and does not belong.

I won't even mention the fact that the very gallery _he _states should be used for tone-mapped images _*SPECIFICALLY *_ states that it should be used for _*HDR's*_. It's doubtful you'll see Bynx mention it, either...



> Calling theft, that's just plain stupid, and totally beside the point of the thread.



Is it?

Theft, whenever it occurs, she be exposed.

He didn't take that photo of the sky. He found it online; even admitted using Google to get it. He used it, and failed to attribute it to the person who actually took it.

If I did that with one of your images, you would be upset, and rightly so, because I would be guilty of stealing your image. 

And that's _exactly _what Bynx did...


----------



## Steve5D

vipgraphx said:


> inaka said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an HDR image I took over the weekend from a bigger set:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lounge Area by InakaMike, on Flickr
> 
> Is this too "overcooked" to most people?
> Just wondering...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say this is over cook but its all relative right?
Click to expand...


I like it.

The sky visible through the middle window could use some attention but, beyond that, I dig it...


----------



## pixmedic

A quick Kum ba yah before the lock...   :mrgreen:

Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah! 
Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah! 
Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah. 
O Lord, Kum ba yah


  Someone's crying, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's crying, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's crying, Lord,  Kum ba yah! 
O Lord, Kum ba yah 


 Someone's singing, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord,  Kum ba yah! 
O Lord, Kum ba yah  


 Someone's praying, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's praying, Lord,  Kum ba yah!
Someone's praying, Lord,  Kum ba yah! 
O Lord, Kum ba yah


----------

