Do you like my HDR
noauth
What do you think?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
philo
although I generally believe in minimal manipulation
I have to admit that I like it
Alan Browne
I upchuffed.
Savageduck
Waaaaaay too much!
Subtlety is the way to go, even with strong HDR.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Annika1980
> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my first effort.
> What do you think?http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
Does chuffed mean pissed or embarrassed?
b...@nospam.com
Too much, and strangely limited range... not realistic.
Could be a cover drawing for a childrens book.
Savageduck
I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the
tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying
results.
In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
0 adjustment exposure and no other adjustments:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2641w.jpg
not particularly pleasing.
Way over the top HDR with extreme processing & adjustments:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43-2w.jpg
This is a piece of crap!
Then the HDR with much more subtle processing and adjustments:
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43w.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Charles E Hardwidge
news:0203c65c57ae2d75...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
It looks like a screenshot from Quake or some prehistory monolith built to
worship the great god swinging dick.
There's technical and artistic issues others have touched on but that's
obviously a more involved discussion.
So, yes. I like it. Subtlety and artistic nose is another thing. This stuff
isn't easy but what is?
--
Charles E Hardwidge
celcius
news:0203c65c57ae2d75...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
Hi!
I was taken aback (not chuffed) by the scene. It looks to me as something
taken out of a computer game, quite unreal. Personally, I prefer B&W or even
Sepia if I were to present a photo differently, but as they say in France:
"Vive la diff�rence"!
Cheers,
Marcel
Charles E Hardwidge
news:hcmig1$n8h$1...@celcius.motzarella.org...
> "noauth" <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:0203c65c57ae2d75...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>
> I was taken aback (not chuffed) by the scene. It looks to me as something
> taken out of a computer game, quite unreal. Personally, I prefer B&W or
> even Sepia if I were to present a photo differently, but as they say in
> France: "Vive la diff�rence"!
http://aros.sourceforge.net/pictures/screenshots/20000224/quake1.jpeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRIPAsbhZpM
Someone may be able to find a better examples but this is what this HDR shot
reminded me of.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Robert Spanjaard
>> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my
>> first effort.
>> What do you think?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>
> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the
> tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying
> results.
>
> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
>
> 0 adjustment exposure and no other adjustments:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2641w.jpg not particularly
> pleasing.
>
> Way over the top HDR with extreme processing & adjustments:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43-2w.jpg This
> is a piece of crap!
>
> Then the HDR with much more subtle processing and adjustments:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43w.jpg
And it's still a piece of crap.
I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image quite
well. The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping
process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the
right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black at
the top).
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
tony cooper
It reminds me of the "art" of Thomas Kincade. That is not a
compliment.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Savageduck
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:04:21 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my
>>> first effort.
>>> What do you think?
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>>
>> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the
>> tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying
>> results.
>>
>> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
>>
>> 0 adjustment exposure and no other adjustments:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2641w.jpg not particularly
>> pleasing.
>>
>> Way over the top HDR with extreme processing & adjustments:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43-2w.jpg This
>> is a piece of crap!
>>
>> Then the HDR with much more subtle processing and adjustments:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43w.jpg
>
> And it's still a piece of crap.
Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in
application of what few skills I have.
Just pointing out that going over the top is not necessarily the best
way to go.
HDR processing is a useful tool, and will always be a personal taste
issue. Some HDR images work well with great results and others are best
left alone. I fear there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
There is no accounting for taste.
>
> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image quite
> well.
Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition
would have been better.
> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping
> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the
> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black at
> the top).
Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed
with other adjustments.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Spanjaard
Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all)
processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of
tonemapping for the ground and sky.
http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as
the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky
meet:
http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_ground.jpg
http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_sky.jpg
(note that the separate images lack some processing, like increased
saturation and sharpening)
Robert Spanjaard
>>> Then the HDR with much more subtle processing and adjustments:
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43w.jpg
>>
>> And it's still a piece of crap.
>
> Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in
> application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over
> the top is not necessarily the best way to go. HDR processing is a
> useful tool, and will always be a personal taste issue. Some HDR images
> work well with great results and others are best left alone. I fear
> there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
>
> There is no accounting for taste.
>
>>
>> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image
>> quite well.
>
> Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition
> would have been better.
Actually, I agree. I just posted it as a fact instead of an opinion
because you did the same in your other reply:
---8<------8<------8<------8<---
Waaaaaay too much!
Subtlety is the way to go, even with strong HDR.
---8<------8<------8<------8<---
>> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping
>> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the
>> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black
>> at the top).
>
> Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed
> with other adjustments.
Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all)
processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of
tonemapping for the ground and sky.
http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as
the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky
meet:
http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_ground.jpg
http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_sky.jpg
(note that the separate images lack some processing, like increased
saturation and sharpening)
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Savageduck
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:34:34 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>>> Then the HDR with much more subtle processing and adjustments:
>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43w.jpg
>>>
>>> And it's still a piece of crap.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah. I never claimed to very selective of subject, or skilled in
>> application of what few skills I have. Just pointing out that going over
>> the top is not necessarily the best way to go. HDR processing is a
>> useful tool, and will always be a personal taste issue. Some HDR images
>> work well with great results and others are best left alone. I fear
>> there is too much emphasis on HDR today.
>>
>> There is no accounting for taste.
>>
>>>
>>> I like noauth's image. The over-the-top tonemapping fits the image
>>> quite well.
>>
>> Again, a matter of taste. Too much for me, I think a subtle rendition
>> would have been better.
>
> Actually, I agree. I just posted it as a fact instead of an opinion
> because you did the same in your other reply:
OK. point taken.
>
> ---8<------8<------8<------8<---
> Waaaaaay too much!
>
> Subtlety is the way to go, even with strong HDR.
> ---8<------8<------8<------8<---
>
>>> The only thing missing is a bit of correction after the tonemapping
>>> process, like the halo around the monument and the camerapole on the
>>> right with its obvious change in brightness (grey at the bottom, black
>>> at the top).
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not??? I doubt the excessive HDR processing could be fixed
>> with other adjustments.
>
> Ofcourse it can. You can always use parts from a less (or not at all)
> processed version. In the image below, I used different levels of
> tonemapping for the ground and sky.
>
> http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_3356.jpg
>
> The sky has much less tonemapping, because if I'd used the same amount as
> the ground, there would be very ugly dark smears where the hills and sky
> meet:
>
> http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_ground.jpg
> http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_3356_sky.jpg
>
> (note that the separate images lack some processing, like increased
> saturation and sharpening)
I cannot deny you have the skills and experience with HDR, and I am
still moving up that learning curve.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
dadiOH
> On 2009-11-01 16:47:36 -0800, noauth <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx>
> said:
>> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my
>> first effort.
>> What do you think?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>
> I think what we have all tried to say, is just because you have the
> tools for HDR there is no need to go to extremes to get satisfying
> results.
>
> In this example of a 5 exposure HDR you have the following:
>
> 0 adjustment exposure and no other adjustments:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2641w.jpg
> not particularly pleasing.
>
> Way over the top HDR with extreme processing & adjustments:
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_2639_40_41_42_43-2w.jpg
> This is a piece of crap!
Depends on one's point of view, I guess. I like it best, reminds me of late
19th century impressionism.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Peter
news:0203c65c57ae2d75...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
Since you asked.
Looks like an out of focus cartoon. Other's may like it, I don't
The HDR effect is over done, and looks as if it was done for the purpose of
showing that one can do HDR, rather than using it to create art.
--
Peter
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember noauth
<an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> saying something like:
>I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my first effort.
>What do you think?
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
Overdone barf-making tinkering.
The whole point of HDR is to restore, or at least synthesise, what was
lost. Not to create alien landscapes, like the ones inhabited by many
'togs now.
Robert Spanjaard
Exactly. Abuse of HDR-imaging and tonemapping is bad, very bad.
Almost as bad as using a 'funny' three-line attribution at the top of
your post, you hypocrite.
Paul Furman
That looks like too much to me. It is difficult to do effectively. What
I usually do is regular adjustments in Adobe Lightroom, which frankly
turn out pretty crappy most of the time, especially if you zoom in & see
the freaky halos that result from their fill light, highlight recovery,
etc. Here's an example from today that doesn't show those defcts but
does have a certain lack of punch I often see with this approach to
post-processing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4076733670/
That's not to say it can't be used to good effect, just that it is very
difficult, or rare that the occasion presents itself, I don't know.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Camer01
"noauth" <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:0203c65c57ae2d75...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx...
Hi alan,
Been tryin out some on paint shop
my self, see what u think....
http://c.j.photos.tripod.com/download/Loch_Arklet_04a.jpg
Robert Spanjaard
>>I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my
>>first effort.
>> What do you think?
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>
>
> Hi alan,
> Been tryin out some on paint shop
> my self, see what u think....
>
> http://c.j.photos.tripod.com/download/Loch_Arklet_04a.jpg
The sky is slightly overdone, perhaps. But it's a good effort anyway.
I'd try to get rid of the noise in the sky, which increased a lot along
with the contrast.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<spam...@arumes.com> saying something like:
>Almost as bad as using a 'funny' three-line attribution at the top of
>your post, you hypocrite.
I suggest you try to find your pills.
UC
> What do you think?http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
If I see another one of these HDR photos I'm gonna die.
Robert Spanjaard
>> I have just completed my first HDR course, I a pretty chuffed with my
>> first effort. What do you
>> think?http://www.flickr.com/photos/36531368@N00/3814559422/sizes/o/
>
> If I see another one of these HDR photos I'm gonna die.
http://www.arumes.com/temp/photo/fullsize/CRW_2840.jpg
Don't worry. It's a single tonemapped image. No HDR. ;-)