| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2009 01:41:37 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Judi:
the challenge details DID NOT stipulate that you had to use separate images. |
Correct, therefore, any technique used to achieve the end is ok, and since some people use HDR to simply bring more dynamic range to a realistic image, you cannot tell what they actually did. That pretty much takes this down to a freestudy. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:42:48 AM · #77 |
Votes: 25
Views: 60
Avg Vote: 6.0000
I really ought to go to bed on this. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:44:56 AM · #78 |
me too
Votes: 23
Views: 60
Avg Vote: 6.0000
Comments: 1
|
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:49:05 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I really ought to go to bed on this. |
Okay, I lied. Had to hit update once more.
Votes: 27
Views: 63
Avg Vote: 6.1481
Comments: 1 |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:51:36 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Votes: 25
Views: 60
Avg Vote: 6.0000
I really ought to go to bed on this. |
I really ought to get up lol |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:52:49 AM · #81 |
| Time differences make for some interesting discussion threads, eh? |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 01:55:21 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Judi:
The last 3 HDR challenges all showcased Landscapes with nothing else in them. Anything with a person, animal or any non-landscape subject finished low. HDR is not purely about landscape. |
I completely agree....I gave out four 10's. One of them was a landscape, and three of them were no where near landscapes. Some really great images in this challenge. Great job everyone. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:03:06 AM · #83 |
Mines been a real roller-coaster... started at 5.5 then up to 6.2 then down to 5.7 and now
Votes: 26
Views: 62
Avg Vote: 6.1154
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
I guess people either hate it or rather like it. Apparently not much in between right now.
Message edited by author 2009-09-14 02:04:17. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:19:25 AM · #84 |
I'm stamping every one I vote on with this:
Muwahahaaaahaaaaa*cough*haaaa. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:25:53 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm stamping every one I vote on with this:
Muwahahaaaahaaaaa*cough*haaaa. |
Sigh!!!!
|
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:27:56 AM · #86 |
LOL. Can I borrow that when your done with it?
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm stamping every one I vote on with this:
Muwahahaaaahaaaaa*cough*haaaa. |
|
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:49:24 AM · #87 |
Votes: 30
Views: 72
Avg Vote: 4.8333
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/14/09 02:46 am
not doing so great! i swear if its not a over processed cartoonish photo its worthless to most people! AHHH! natural looking HDR is more pleaseing to me |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 02:50:40 AM · #88 |
Votes: 34
Views: 69
Avg Vote: 6.5000
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0 |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 03:10:12 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm stamping every one I vote on with this:
Muwahahaaaahaaaaa*cough*haaaa. |
Well it's your fault ART!
Message edited by author 2009-09-14 03:12:19.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2009 03:16:27 AM · #90 |
For those who don't think HDR can be done with subjects in motion AND multiple exposures, you just haven't tried! It is really quite fun and the results are quite unpredictable. Not for the feint of heart. There's one in my portfolio I just uploaded (won't post it here for fear of the outtakes police, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with any potential entry I may or may not have in the challenge.)
I had so much fun doing that, I may try it some more. Just can't do much with the laptop as far as processing. Trying to find an HDR to submit last night took HOURS of trying to process a fews shots. I either need a new laptop or not to have computer-intensive processing requirements when traveling. Oh, and my entry which I may or may not have is in the VERY low 6s - next update will take it under - and I am positively, absolutely delighted with that from a score perspective! (Wishing I would have submitted the odd one, though.) |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 04:17:36 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I don't think it's fake if you actually shot in RAW and created 3 files with different exposures. How is that different that taking the three shots? you end up with the same thing. |
No you don't. 3 actual expsosures gets you more dynamic range captured. Of course a single RAW probably contains as much dynamic range as 3 JPEG's. So, argue away. |
When you do it from one raw file like that, it does not cover as much dynamic range overall. It is simply not possible to have detail in the near-whites and detail in the near-blacks even when shooting raw. Because you have to favour the near-whites (you cannot fixed lost detail in the near-whites) your jpg you create for the mid-blacks has to be really brightened a lot, and it will have way more noise problems then if you had a properly exposed, separate image with that tonality in it.
It does work in a pinch, but it is certainly not as good as the real (multiple exposures) thing.
What has surprised me about this challenge is the huge number of entries that are of subjects that do not at all lend themselves to the HDR technique! There are some outstanding images, but some pretty garrish ones as well. |
I agree that you can get more dynamic range with actual separate exposures but that does not make using a multi processed RAW file fake HDR. As a matter of fact it is the only way to use HDR in many situations, wind, moving subjects and the like. Both processes have their place. |
Exactly...and the challenge details DID NOT stipulate that you had to use separate images. |
No argument here. I did not call any of them "fake" HDR images. I was just stating that although a single image can be used, they work out better when made from multiple images. :) The person that was throwing around the word "fake" was not me. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 05:59:47 AM · #92 |
Votes: 37
Views: 95
Avg Vote: 6.5676
Comments: 0 |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:05:32 AM · #93 |
Some of these just aren't HDR at all, they're just photos with the exposure/brightness cranked up. That is not HDR.
|
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:10:50 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by dd1989:
Some of these just aren't HDR at all, they're just photos with the exposure/brightness cranked up. That is not HDR. |
So what makes HDR? Haloing, Oversaturation, high noise....I'd love to see your definition. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:27:08 AM · #95 |
Oh please, there is a defined ruleset for a HDR image, the main being the greater dynamic range between dark and light parts of an image. If you crank up the exposure, you aren't increasing the range, you are simply shifting the same range from one end of the scale to another. By combining exposures you're taking the range of each image and creating an image with a much wider range.
That's the whole point of HDR, no part of the image is over saturated, there shouldn't be any noise if you can take a photo properly in the first place without noise, and as for Haloing...wtf...learn-to-use-software-properly... |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:28:11 AM · #96 |
Darn, I knew I should have left it to the experienced HDRers.
Votes: 38
Views: 77
Avg Vote: 4.3947
Comments: 1
Wish voting lasted only 3 days. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:30:53 AM · #97 |
Votes: 38
Views: 83
Avg Vote: 5.2105
Comments: 0 |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:47:08 AM · #98 |
Is it plateauing?
Votes: 40
Views: 101
Avg Vote: 6.5750
Comments: 0 |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 06:56:09 AM · #99 |
aww... I guess the posting curse is back.
Votes: 43
Views: 109
Avg Vote: 5.8837
Comments: 2
Favorites: 0
Message edited by author 2009-09-14 08:30:30. |
|
|
|
09/14/2009 07:00:39 AM · #100 |
Held up well while I slept.
Votes: 46
Views: 96
Avg Vote: 6.1087
Comments: 2 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:31:49 PM EDT.
