| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2006 02:50:25 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
... So was the sky originally blown out? Was the grass originally too dark? Hard to say. Only you know for sure. But you've brought them both together very nicely here. |
Thanks David. I just typed up a major paragraph explaining this shot, then erased it. Perhaps it would be better suited to discuss the details after this challenge is over. My bad... |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 02:53:28 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
but I do believe you're able to tell if an image has had HDR applied (given that it has enough diverse objects to make such a distinction, i.e. landscape). |
Without knowing what kind of lighting was present at the time ... how would you be able to tell?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:27:06 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
Some entries look like they don't have HDR, actually quite a few, anybody else feel that way? Maybe entering for the sake of entering or not understanding HDR (not saying your entry has to look like a cartoon or glow everywhere)? |
Be careful of confusing the sometimes over-the-top LSD style tone-mapped HDR with the only HDR in existance. The effect can be more subtle.
In other words, I think it's nice to give the benefit of the doubt to photogs who have, after all, entered a "HDR" challenge. |
Yeah, this is driving me crazy. "True" HDR is not a "special effect", it's not another form of grunge or draganizing, it's a way to compress extreme tonal ranges into the more limited gamut of the screen or print. By that standard, if you can tell it's been tone mapped then the photographer has gone too far.
R. |
I don't disagree with you often Robert, but I think HDR gives us the tools to show an image in a range of light and or color that simply can not be captured in one exposure.
I think in some cases the artist wants you to see the tone mapping as part of the expression. weather the artist has taken it too far or not is totally up to the artists vision and what they were trying to achieve.
HDR is digitally altered photography no matter how you slice it. So if some want to make it look like it wasn't manipulated, so be it. But I don't think there is such thing as having gone too far when you are talking about digitally manipulated images. Why lock yourself into a purist mentality on something that is manipulated.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:28:58 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by marksimms:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
The time was way to short to think up anything decent or to put a lot of time in postprocessing. IMO this should not have been a 24hr challenge. I've been familiar with increasing the dynamic range for three years now though Fred Miranda's dynamic range increase and the manual method described at luminous landscapes. The best result IMO is when you don't even notice it was used. Yeah sure it can be used artistically, but just like selective desat it only looks cool in a few situations/scenes.
So I did not enter, but I just finished voting and was rather disappointed to tell you the truth. But I blame lack of time mostly, uninteresting scenes, sloppy processing, unreal colors, halo's, you name it.
Gave one 8, one 7, 22 sixes, 27 fives, 31 fours and two 3's....
So, when you think a troll has just been voting, that was me. Here is the explanation for all of them. |
Agreed, I found a couple of good shots, but the majority were uninteresting, poorly done or both.
I don't think 24hrs was enough time for this challenge, especially for someone who has little or no experience with this technique. Ultimately the blame lies with the photographers who submitted anyway. |
And how did you come to that conclusion? |
Which conclusion are you talking about?
The first is my opinion, you are free to think otherwise.
The second is that I have found it to be difficult to generate a good image for a speed challenge. Also I have been messing around with HDR and have found the learning curve to getting quality results to require more than 24hrs. I don't mean just going through the steps, but understanding how each choice that you make in the process affects your final result. I think the images in this challenge only serve to confirm this.
As for the third, who aside from the photographer is responsible for submitting a poor image?
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 15:30:11. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:31:57 PM · #55 |
Is submitting a 'poor' image actually some sort of crime now?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:34:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
I don't disagree with you often Robert, but I think HDR gives us the tools to show an image in a range of light and or color that simply can not be captured in one exposure.
I think in some cases the artist wants you to see the tone mapping as part of the expression. weather the artist has taken it too far or not is totally up to the artists vision and what they were trying to achieve.
HDR is digitally altered photography no matter how you slice it. So if some want to make it look like it wasn't manipulated, so be it. But I don't think there is such thing as having gone too far when you are talking about digitally manipulated images. Why lock yourself into a purist mentality on something that is manipulated. |
We don't really disagree at all. Everyone's welcome to do as they wish. It's just that my "ear to the ground" is telling me that there are images entered in this challenge that are "true" HDRI images (from that purist perspective) that are suffering at the hands of the voters because they are so well done you can't tell HDRI has been used. So the shoe's on the other foot, so to speak.
I have NO problem with accepting an exaggerated tone-mapped image for what it is (I've made more than a few myself), but I'd hate it if that's all that scored in the top 10 in this challenge :-)
R.
Edit to Add: I'm not one of those images that is suffering; I'm between the two extremes and doing OK...
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 15:35:11. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:34:58 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
I think in some cases the artist wants you to see the tone mapping as part of the expression. weather the artist has taken it too far or not is totally up to the artists vision and what they were trying to achieve. |
The thing is the artist should strive to be unique. The artist themselves are ultimately on "display" when they reveal their work. It's very difficult to share "your" vision and "yourself" when the look of your work has a "preset" feel to it that most everyone else can achieve with just a little work.
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 15:36:19. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:41:49 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We don't really disagree at all. Everyone's welcome to do as they wish. It's just that my "ear to the ground" is telling me that there are images entered in this challenge that are "true" HDRI images (from that purist perspective) that are suffering at the hands of the voters because they are so well done you can't tell HDRI has been used. So the shoe's on the other foot, so to speak.
I have NO problem with accepting an exaggerated tone-mapped image for what it is (I've made more than a few myself), but I'd hate it if that's all that scored in the top 10 in this challenge :-)
|
That's pretty much my reason for not wanting to vote on this challenge. I'm not real fond of the "over-done" stuff and not sure if the other stuff is HDR. Soooo... how do I vote? I really think if I were to go through and vote, a bunch of the competitors in this challenge would feel like a troll came through.
Nah, not gonna do it to you guys. I'm sure a lot of you busted your butts on this challenge and deserve better.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:51:18 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gringo:
I don't disagree with you often Robert, but I think HDR gives us the tools to show an image in a range of light and or color that simply can not be captured in one exposure.
I think in some cases the artist wants you to see the tone mapping as part of the expression. weather the artist has taken it too far or not is totally up to the artists vision and what they were trying to achieve.
HDR is digitally altered photography no matter how you slice it. So if some want to make it look like it wasn't manipulated, so be it. But I don't think there is such thing as having gone too far when you are talking about digitally manipulated images. Why lock yourself into a purist mentality on something that is manipulated. |
We don't really disagree at all. Everyone's welcome to do as they wish. It's just that my "ear to the ground" is telling me that there are images entered in this challenge that are "true" HDRI images (from that purist perspective) that are suffering at the hands of the voters because they are so well done you can't tell HDRI has been used. So the shoe's on the other foot, so to speak.
I have NO problem with accepting an exaggerated tone-mapped image for what it is (I've made more than a few myself), but I'd hate it if that's all that scored in the top 10 in this challenge :-)
R.
Edit to Add: I'm not one of those images that is suffering; I'm between the two extremes and doing OK... |
I'm with you Robert, and I totally agree that it would be a shame if some of the stellar images I've seen in that challenge don't get the merit they deserve. But, I don't see this is much different than any of the many good images that don't do as well in the other challenges because they didn't stand out. As always, the "in-your-face" entries that exaggerate the challenge topic do generally seem to have favor with the voters.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:54:47 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
... As always, the "in-your-face" entries that exaggerate the challenge topic do generally seem to have favor with the voters. |
Dang it! I knew I shouldn't have pulled back on those saturation sliders. Oh wait, maybe I pushed them too far. Can't remember now - it's all a 24 hour blur. :D
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:58:54 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Gringo:
... As always, the "in-your-face" entries that exaggerate the challenge topic do generally seem to have favor with the voters. |
Dang it! I knew I shouldn't have pulled back on those saturation sliders. Oh wait, maybe I pushed them too far. Can't remember now - it's all a 24 hour blur. :D |
Hahaha, I kept saying the same thing to myself as I was putting mine together. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:58:59 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Is submitting a 'poor' image actually some sort of crime now? |
No, who suggested it was?
However, all the talk of troll voters, low voters, etc seems to show photographers looking to place the blame for their score elsewhere. I gave a lot of well-deserved low scores in this challenge to images that were just not good. I'm sure a lot of effort went into those images, but regardless, poor results were all that was achieved.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 03:59:10 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's just that my "ear to the ground" is telling me that there are images entered in this challenge that are "true" HDRI images (from that purist perspective) that are suffering at the hands of the voters because they are so well done you can't tell HDRI has been used. So the shoe's on the other foot, so to speak. |
I'm more a technician than an artist, so I'll never do great here, but I'd like to concur with your ear. I've got a very non-cartoonish HDR entry that's sinking badly, yet without HDR it would have been totally impossible to capture, even with a film camera.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 04:01:29 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Is submitting a 'poor' image actually some sort of crime now? |
No, but it might get you comments like "why would anyone submit this" and "hope you were going for the brown". |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 04:03:28 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by talmy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's just that my "ear to the ground" is telling me that there are images entered in this challenge that are "true" HDRI images (from that purist perspective) that are suffering at the hands of the voters because they are so well done you can't tell HDRI has been used. So the shoe's on the other foot, so to speak. |
I'm more a technician than an artist, so I'll never do great here, but I'd like to concur with your ear. I've got a very non-cartoonish HDR entry that's sinking badly, yet without HDR it would have been totally impossible to capture, even with a film camera. |
And I think it probably doesn't help that probably a lot of people voting on the challenge don't understand HDR in the first place. (Which is why I'm not voting.) |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 04:14:36 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Is submitting a 'poor' image actually some sort of crime now? |
No, who suggested it was?
However, all the talk of troll voters, low voters, etc seems to show photographers looking to place the blame for their score elsewhere. I gave a lot of well-deserved low scores in this challenge to images that were just not good. I'm sure a lot of effort went into those images, but regardless, poor results were all that was achieved. |
I would venture to suggest that you might have suggested that it was. You go on to talk about 'well-deserved' low scores, when who made any of us the final arbiter on what is good and what is not?
(For the avoidance of doubt, this is just a particular hobby horse of mine and I've jumped in on this thread to bang on about it.)
There are any number of threads going on in any number of on-line forums where someone says that photographer X produces the biggest pile of crap that anyone's ever seen, whereas the next commenter says that photographer X is some sort of demi-god.
My point is that 'poor' is entirely subjective (as far as aesthetics goes).
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:00:47 PM · #67 |
| I guess I totally misunderstood 'HDR'. I thought that HDR meant the histogram would fill the available range from black to white with image detail throughout. But many of the entries appear to have a compressed dynamic range with the histogram truncated on both ends, resulting in a muddy appearance! |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:11:31 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
I guess I totally misunderstood 'HDR'. I thought that HDR meant the histogram would fill the available range from black to white with image detail throughout. But many of the entries appear to have a compressed dynamic range with the histogram truncated on both ends, resulting in a muddy appearance! |
I tend to think like you. I mean ... why use HDR unless the original dynamic range is so large that it is anything but muddy?
That's where the "reveal" step (or Tone Mapping) in HDR processing comes into play. And that's where some experience in processing HDR is going to be helpful.
The goal is still to create a compelling image. And chances are good, that means it'll fill the histogram. But not necessarily. It's up to the artist revealing the HDR. So it's a bit of learning curve for all of us to figure out what to do with this HDR beast. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:30:49 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by AJAger:
Is submitting a 'poor' image actually some sort of crime now? |
No, who suggested it was?
However, all the talk of troll voters, low voters, etc seems to show photographers looking to place the blame for their score elsewhere. I gave a lot of well-deserved low scores in this challenge to images that were just not good. I'm sure a lot of effort went into those images, but regardless, poor results were all that was achieved. |
I would venture to suggest that you might have suggested that it was. You go on to talk about 'well-deserved' low scores, when who made any of us the final arbiter on what is good and what is not?
(For the avoidance of doubt, this is just a particular hobby horse of mine and I've jumped in on this thread to bang on about it.)
There are any number of threads going on in any number of on-line forums where someone says that photographer X produces the biggest pile of crap that anyone's ever seen, whereas the next commenter says that photographer X is some sort of demi-god.
My point is that 'poor' is entirely subjective (as far as aesthetics goes). |
Let me clear this up.
As far as low scores being well-deserved, that, along with the corresponding low score is my opinion, and is, as you suggest, subjective. When I say a score is well-deserved, it is only my opinion. Your opinion may be otherwise. That's the beauty of opinion, I can have mine and you can have yours and we're both right.
As far as someone being the final arbiter of quality photography, as far as my opinion and scoring go, that role is for me alone. You and everyone else are free to fill the same role for yourselves, or you can let someone else tell you what to think, either way, it's your decision. In other words, if I say it's crap, then it is crap. You are free to form your own opinion to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:50:08 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I tend to think like you. I mean ... why use HDR unless the original dynamic range is so large that it is anything but muddy?
That's where the "reveal" step (or Tone Mapping) in HDR processing comes into play. And that's where some experience in processing HDR is going to be helpful.
The goal is still to create a compelling image. And chances are good, that means it'll fill the histogram. But not necessarily. It's up to the artist revealing the HDR. So it's a bit of learning curve for all of us to figure out what to do with this HDR beast. :-) |
Agreed! HDR should be used to reveal pertinent details that otherwise would be lost due to a lack of dynamic range. But compressing the range to insure inclusion will almost always de-emphasize the contrast. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 05:55:55 PM · #71 |
Regardless to all the above. I love the look of HDR images, even the overly tone-mapped ones, its a style of photography that has really inspired me, to me its a lot more than just a photoshop style filter. When I was taking the trio of images that finally made up my composite I reviewed on the camera LCD and tried to get a pretty good picture of how it would come out. I wasn't just clicking and praying they would all fall together. Does the end result look fake? sure it does. Does it look good, to me, yes it does, I am very happy with it, and my 7.4 score says a lot of the voters are enjoying it as well.. Maybe too many of us are analysing photos too much, we get too wrapped up in all the technical aspects and don't see the beauty of an image directly in front of us? I am guilty of that as well, when I look at a photograph these days, I find myself picking it apart far too much and can't just enjoy it for what it is.
At the end of the day, if a photo makes me go "WOW!", then its a great photo. (although the photographer in me will scream that it needs to be analysed and faults need to be found)...
Arrrgh. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 06:21:00 PM · #72 |
sounds good to me ! i don't much care how an image was made if i find that viewing it taps into my emotions in any way.
i read a short article on HDR talking about how the use of color contrasts can be used to simulate a broader dynamic range than is present. this was used by painters way back. so a special application isn't necessary. i ran mine through an HDR app - but ended up with a pretty boringly flat image. in the end i tried another approach using mainly adjustment layers and masks. as a result i learned a few usefull things about PS and actually created my entry - it's scoring pretty good - not 7.4 though !
Originally posted by marksimms:
Regardless to all the above. I love the look of HDR images, even the overly tone-mapped ones, its a style of photography that has really inspired me, to me its a lot more than just a photoshop style filter. When I was taking the trio of images that finally made up my composite I reviewed on the camera LCD and tried to get a pretty good picture of how it would come out. I wasn't just clicking and praying they would all fall together. Does the end result look fake? sure it does. Does it look good, to me, yes it does, I am very happy with it, and my 7.4 score says a lot of the voters are enjoying it as well.. Maybe too many of us are analysing photos too much, we get too wrapped up in all the technical aspects and don't see the beauty of an image directly in front of us? I am guilty of that as well, when I look at a photograph these days, I find myself picking it apart far too much and can't just enjoy it for what it is.
At the end of the day, if a photo makes me go "WOW!", then its a great photo. (although the photographer in me will scream that it needs to be analysed and faults need to be found)...
Arrrgh. |
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 06:22:31 PM · #73 |
| I assume you entered a landscape shot or something with a strong landscape backdrop? It seems with those shots you can always push it to the max and still get great scores but do that with other subjects and you'll get slammed. Same goes for oversharpening, over smoothing (neatimage) and the like. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 06:22:36 PM · #74 |
| WOW, just looked through the HDR pictures. Great job everybody! I haven't voted or commented yet. Hopefully I will have time this weekend. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 06:44:13 PM · #75 |
is that aimed at me?
the point is the final result was what i envisioned before i took the photo/s... and i am happy with it, as are some folks locally, as are some of the voters maybe ;}
the point isn't whether or not i used some tool or application to do this or that - or that i used a subject that might be better suited for the effect. i attempted to make the dynamic range appear wider than what my camera can capture and i entered it. if the votes are high or low - assuming why isn't going to change it...
Originally posted by yanko:
I assume you entered a landscape shot or something with a strong landscape backdrop? It seems with those shots you can always push it to the max and still get great scores but do that with other subjects and you'll get slammed. Same goes for oversharpening, over smoothing (neatimage) and the like.
|
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 18:44:57.
|
|
