Author | Thread |
|
11/12/2008 02:53:06 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by chromeydome: I am not overly fond of bug images--but I evaluate each one that shows up in a challenge on it's own merits, and one of the most fantastic images I have ever seen here was this:
So, keeping an open mind will allow you to get more value from this site, and to offer more value to others here, as well. Which, to me, is the point of being here. |
I'm flattered. :) I've been trying to use processing more often to actually convey something rather than just "improve" the picture (ie. the processing has a message in itself). In that shot I was trying to make it as "pretty" as possible while still making the spider the subject. As I said in the notes, the phobic would ignore the beauty of the shot and simply fear the spider. The non-phobic wouldn't understand this and be drawn to the color and bokeh instead. |
and this image only placed 24th. thank you for illustrating the fundamental flaws of the system. attractive, well thought out images are overlooked, while heavily processed, poor original images are getting ribbons. |
I am not against heavily processed images... that is an art in itself... and heavily processed HDR images deserve ribbons.. if they fit the category.
I do however agree that overly done post processing kind of takes the real essence of an image away.. and it does happen although rarely.
I also agree that more than often a well post-processed image will win a ribbon if you place it alongside a beautiful minimally processed image. But I accept that as people's appreciation of the end result more than anything. Tell me how many voters really know the essence of what HDR imaging and post processing is and why is it important (when it is)? It is my opinion that people tend to vote based on what catches their attention.. no matter how the image was acquired/procecced.
That said, I have taken my share of bullets for suggesting more challenges that require an image right off the camera body.. no PP allowed. That doesnt mean people are taking hit at me personally.. it just means if you think differently, there will be resistance. It is natural to resist change.. in opinions .. in beliefs. So I would say dont take offense.. and have fun 'differing'... I try to.. and still like DPC:-)
|
|
|
11/12/2008 02:59:21 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by violinist123: Originally posted by MattO: Although I dont vote HDR images down(I rarely vote anymore at all) I have to say that the HDR technique is overused, overdone, and quite frankly hurts my eyes. The human eye cannot normally see that range of colors, and when I see it, it almost makes me sick to my stomach, if I every actually saw either of those images in real life while walking around I'd certainly check my meds, or lay off the drugs that helped me see them.
Matt |
I never understood how HDR/tone-mapping is in any way increasing the dynamic range of an image. Your camera has a limited dynamic range as does your output device, both of which fall far short of the human eye. Simply mapping a cartoonish palette of colors throughout the image doesn't change this. The only benefit it offers in my opinion is another special effect to increase the eye-candy factor of an image, if such candy happens to be to the viewer's taste. |
You're right, it does not increase the bit depth. It does give you a wider pallete of range to choose from. In any case 8 bit depth with jpg is 8 bit depth.
I'll throw this one out there
If you look in the photographers comments you'll see the range of exposures used for this image. No single exposure was able to render the sky and the stones with detail in both. Using HDR allowed me use the proper exposure for the sky and the stones in the same image. In my mind's eye, I remember the shot more like it appears after the HDR and tone mapping, more so than it appears in any single exposure.
So using this tool allowed me to render the scene as I remembered it, not as it appeared in any single exposure. |
|
|
11/12/2008 03:08:18 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by scarbrd: Originally posted by violinist123: Originally posted by MattO: Although I dont vote HDR images down(I rarely vote anymore at all) I have to say that the HDR technique is overused, overdone, and quite frankly hurts my eyes. The human eye cannot normally see that range of colors, and when I see it, it almost makes me sick to my stomach, if I every actually saw either of those images in real life while walking around I'd certainly check my meds, or lay off the drugs that helped me see them.
Matt |
I never understood how HDR/tone-mapping is in any way increasing the dynamic range of an image. Your camera has a limited dynamic range as does your output device, both of which fall far short of the human eye. Simply mapping a cartoonish palette of colors throughout the image doesn't change this. The only benefit it offers in my opinion is another special effect to increase the eye-candy factor of an image, if such candy happens to be to the viewer's taste. |
You're right, it does not increase the bit depth. It does give you a wider pallete of range to choose from. In any case 8 bit depth with jpg is 8 bit depth.
I'll throw this one out there
If you look in the photographers comments you'll see the range of exposures used for this image. No single exposure was able to render the sky and the stones with detail in both. Using HDR allowed me use the proper exposure for the sky and the stones in the same image. In my mind's eye, I remember the shot more like it appears after the HDR and tone mapping, more so than it appears in any single exposure.
So using this tool allowed me to render the scene as I remembered it, not as it appeared in any single exposure. |
That is a good example. HDR is a term widely misunderstood in the digital photography community IMO. Many people just blindly learn the post-processing technique without learning about the concept itself.
In a way taking multiple exposures does allow one to capture more of what is there in the scene and put it in a single image. It doesnt increase the per pixel depth (or the dynamic range) in the output channel, but it DOES allow one to capture a wider range of the input channel (sky, shadows, water, stones) and squeeze them into the limited dynamic range that today's digital processing and display devices boast of.
It can really benefit an image if done the right way.. which is to highlight more of the details in an image. But it can really make you sick to your stomach too if it isnt done with a purpose in mind but just to put a special effect in there.
My 2 cts.
|
|
|
11/12/2008 03:12:35 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Prash:
That is a good example. HDR is a term widely misunderstood in the digital photography community IMO. Many people just blindly learn the post-processing technique without learning about the concept itself.
In a way taking multiple exposures does allow one to capture more of what is there in the scene and put it in a single image. It doesnt increase the per pixel depth (or the dynamic range) in the output channel, but it DOES allow one to capture a wider range of the input channel (sky, shadows, water, stones) and squeeze them into the limited dynamic range that today's digital processing and display devices boast of.
It can really benefit an image if done the right way.. which is to highlight more of the details in an image. But it can really make you sick to your stomach too if it isnt done with a purpose in mind but just to put a special effect in there.
My 2 cts. |
Agreed. Well said. :-) |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:13:42 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But if you dismiss something out of hand like he seems to be doing with HDR/tone mapping, there's a whole segment that he has lost.
And despite the tendency to be heavy handed, it does much in many instances that is truly nice. |
Personally I think it's the only way to get any good at something. If you truck along thinking everything is wonderful, then you'll just keep on trucking along. Being able to discriminate between what you personally like and particularly dislike is a big part of refining your vision. I can't stand the overly processed, cartoonish look that often results from HDR imaging. I avoid it in my own image making and dislike it when I see it.
I'm all for people who love it to keep on doing it. Good for them. Doesn't mean I'll like it or ever vote it high.
(and I say this as someone who has sample images being used for the sale of HDR processing tools)
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 17:19:07. |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:20:16 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: you're entitled to your opinion, as am i. ..even a bad b/w image is better than an "ok" HDR image .. |
So just to be clear on this, these are "bad" photographs in your eyes?
R. |
yes .. they are. it's like they can't decide to either be a processed piece of art or a representation of reality. the eye doesn't see such landscapes like those images depict. again ..opinions, mine, etc. |
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night'
Edit: Just to add that Im not a big fan of overprocessed photos, but its really a line I cant define.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 17:23:31. |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:23:37 PM · #82 |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:24:19 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night' |
There certainly are people that despise that painting, yet would give high marks to Robert Bateman (for example).
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:37:00 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by kolasi:
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night' |
There certainly are people that despise that painting, yet would give high marks to Robert Bateman (for example).
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
ok, im sure there are people who despise it(though despise might be a bit strong, and those who say it are only trying to show how 'non mainstream' they are).
Most paintings are not exact copies of what we would see, are most paintings by any given famous artist horrible?
I think if a photo is just what we see, well theres no real point to the photo, I can just go and see it for myself |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:42:05 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by kolasi:
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night' |
There certainly are people that despise that painting, yet would give high marks to Robert Bateman (for example).
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
Well said, if we all liked the same thing it would not be nearly as much fun. Personally a lot of the HDR images get overdone but they tend to score well, does that mean this site is going away from photography and into art? I do not think so, even with film they played with all sorts of effects. If you like HDR then by all means do it, if you do not then do the type of shots you like. If it is about the score then do what the voters like. My PB is an HDR shot that I am not all that fond of but it connected with the voters which is what I was hoping for but I have other shots I personally like better.
The one issue I do have is when people say they automatically give out 1's because it is a certain style or subject, I would never give a 1 or a 10 just because of a style someone used but it may change my rating 1 or 2 points just because it does not appeal to me as much as another style or subject. |
|
|
11/12/2008 05:51:29 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by PapaBob: Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by kolasi:
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night' |
There certainly are people that despise that painting, yet would give high marks to Robert Bateman (for example).
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
Well said, if we all liked the same thing it would not be nearly as much fun. Personally a lot of the HDR images get overdone but they tend to score well, does that mean this site is going away from photography and into art? I do not think so, even with film they played with all sorts of effects. If you like HDR then by all means do it, if you do not then do the type of shots you like. If it is about the score then do what the voters like. My PB is an HDR shot that I am not all that fond of but it connected with the voters which is what I was hoping for but I have other shots I personally like better.
The one issue I do have is when people say they automatically give out 1's because it is a certain style or subject, I would never give a 1 or a 10 just because of a style someone used but it may change my rating 1 or 2 points just because it does not appeal to me as much as another style or subject. |
I agree too, but there is no "The End", its great that we can all discuss this without there being a 'the end'.
I think when it comes to photography its more difficult to determine what is art than with other media.
|
|
|
11/12/2008 06:37:08 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by JustinM:
Post Challenge
Wow I am somewhat surprised that this actually scored almost a 5.5. I wanted to see by entering this photo that was obviously far from the original what the voters would think. It got almost exactly in the middle (49% percentile) with a score just above the median. I am sure if I had entered more of the "true" photograph of this scene my score would have been down by at least 0.5. I think the voters here on DPC no longer care that much about "true" photography as much as it may seem sometimes from forum discussions. I just found this whole thing interesting.
Without this heavy of processing this photo isn't really good at all, the composition might be the strongest thing going for it. It was the middle of the afternoon, bright sun/sky and no clouds. And without the processing all the brush and trees are really distracting (to me at least).
Do people vote according to the processing they see?
Does anything I said here mean anything?
Like I said, I just found it all interesting. |
Confusing that photo as a disaster is the real disaster not to mention the test itself. Scoring a 5.47 (i.e. below average) proves that the photo didn't stand out at all, which is the opposite of what an overprocessed image would be trying to accomplish. It would seem your test is proving the opposite (i.e. overprocessing didn't work).
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 18:38:48.
|
|
|
11/12/2008 06:46:30 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: btw, justin ..my apologies for hijacking the thread. that was not my intention. i think it's time to put the soapbox away for the day and go browse through flickr for a bit. |
Thaddeus, don't worry, I don't feel that you really hijacked the thread. I simply wanted people's opinions on some of the things I observed and wondered about myself and I got plenty of them.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
Well said.
Originally posted by ssocrates: May be you can post the original too.
:) |
Yeah if it makes any difference now here it is. Like I said, flat lighting and pretty boring!
Originally posted by yanko:
Confusing that photo as a disaster is the real disaster not to mention the test itself. Scoring a 5.47 (i.e. below average) proves that the photo didn't stand out at all, which is the opposite of what an overprocessed image would be trying to accomplish. It would seem your test is proving the opposite (i.e. overprocessing didn't work). |
Good point, you know since the challenge is over and I've had more time to actually look at the photo I am almost starting to like it. The reason for the title: When I made it I saved it for the web and that is it. I don't even have a full resolution copy of it, I viewed it as a disaster and I totally didn't like it. My brother told me not to enter it but my curiosity to see what other people would think won out. I'm now kicking myself for not saving a full resolution copy.
Message edited by author 2008-11-12 18:47:42.
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:14:22 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
ok, im sure there are people who despise it(though despise might be a bit strong, and those who say it are only trying to show how 'non mainstream' they are). |
That's a pretty arrogant thing to say.
Originally posted by kolasi: Most paintings are not exact copies of what we would see, are most paintings by any given famous artist horrible? |
I think you've chosen the wrong person for this argument. All I said was that all opinions are valid.
Originally posted by kolasi: I think if a photo is just what we see, well theres no real point to the photo, I can just go and see it for myself |
Which is your opinion. Others have different ones. Nobody is *wrong*. I'm confused as to what exactly you were responding to here. |
|
|
11/12/2008 08:16:31 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by kolasi: Originally posted by PapaBob: Originally posted by K10DGuy: Originally posted by kolasi:
SO then this must be a horrible painting, it looks nothing like a 'starry night' |
There certainly are people that despise that painting, yet would give high marks to Robert Bateman (for example).
Again, this is about opinion, which is never wrong. Thaddeus shouldn't have to defend himself, and HDR users/lovers don't need to defend themselves against his opinion. We share our work publicly, we put up with those that both love it and don't love it. Period. The End. |
Well said, if we all liked the same thing it would not be nearly as much fun. Personally a lot of the HDR images get overdone but they tend to score well, does that mean this site is going away from photography and into art? I do not think so, even with film they played with all sorts of effects. If you like HDR then by all means do it, if you do not then do the type of shots you like. If it is about the score then do what the voters like. My PB is an HDR shot that I am not all that fond of but it connected with the voters which is what I was hoping for but I have other shots I personally like better.
The one issue I do have is when people say they automatically give out 1's because it is a certain style or subject, I would never give a 1 or a 10 just because of a style someone used but it may change my rating 1 or 2 points just because it does not appeal to me as much as another style or subject. |
I agree too, but there is no "The End", its great that we can all discuss this without there being a 'the end'.
I think when it comes to photography its more difficult to determine what is art than with other media. |
"The End" is that there will never be unanimous agreement on opinion. Not that there is an end to discussion. Discussion is great, but we were getting dangerously close to sitting in our trenches going, "You're wrong!" "No you are!". THAT needs to end. |
|
|
11/12/2008 08:33:21 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: Originally posted by Bear_Music: Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: you're entitled to your opinion, as am i. ..even a bad b/w image is better than an "ok" HDR image .. |
So just to be clear on this, these are "bad" photographs in your eyes?
R. |
yes .. they are. it's like they can't decide to either be a processed piece of art or a representation of reality. the eye doesn't see such landscapes like those images depict. again ..opinions, mine, etc. |
Sounds like someone's jealous! ;)
|
|
|
11/12/2008 08:58:17 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Sounds like someone's jealous! ;) |
So someone shows him two photos, presumably because they're so unarguably great that he can't possibly fail to gush over them, and when he says they aren't his cup of tea - he's exhibiting jealousy?
The guy doesn't like hdr. What's the big frigging deal. |
|
|
11/12/2008 09:42:07 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by violinist123: Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Sounds like someone's jealous! ;) |
So someone shows him two photos, presumably because they're so unarguably great that he can't possibly fail to gush over them, and when he says they aren't his cup of tea - he's exhibiting jealousy?
The guy doesn't like hdr. What's the big frigging deal. |
Nobody doesn't like HDR. Either he's an alien, a communist, a llama, or he's jealous. |
|
|
11/12/2008 10:05:43 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane: Originally posted by violinist123: Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Sounds like someone's jealous! ;) |
So someone shows him two photos, presumably because they're so unarguably great that he can't possibly fail to gush over them, and when he says they aren't his cup of tea - he's exhibiting jealousy?
The guy doesn't like hdr. What's the big frigging deal. |
Nobody doesn't like HDR. Either he's an alien, a communist, a llama, or he's jealous. |
I thought nobody doesn't like Sara Lee?
Also, I'm not sure that nobody doesn't like HDR. We should let him speak for himself. ;) |
|
|
11/14/2008 12:32:04 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by violinist123: Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Sounds like someone's jealous! ;) |
So someone shows him two photos, presumably because they're so unarguably great that he can't possibly fail to gush over them, and when he says they aren't his cup of tea - he's exhibiting jealousy?
The guy doesn't like hdr. What's the big frigging deal. |
No, dammit. It's not that they are "presumably so unarguably great", sheesh, they are just examples of HDR that are recognizably HDR but not overworked tot he point of being ridiculous, and they scored well. I was curious about his reaction tot hem, is all. There are other HDR images I have made that ARE cartoons, and even more that you'd never know were HDR unless I told you.
In any case I have no problem whatsoever with the guy expressing his strong opinions, it's a big world and he's entitled to them. I'm NOT one of the people jumping all over him for being narrow minded. In fact, my original post to this thread was just beating on my old drum: it's NOT the HDR imaging people actively dislike, it's the overworked TONE MAPPING that sometimes accompanies it.
R. |
|
|
11/14/2008 12:39:22 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music: In any case I have no problem whatsoever with the guy expressing his strong opinions, it's a big world and he's entitled to them. |
It wasn't the opinion that he doesn't like them that seemed objectionable, at least IMO, it was that he pretty much stated that he was going to punish anyone who he thought used the technique by giving it a 1, regardless of whether the image was a good image other than the processing technique.
That just seems unfair to me.
|
|
|
11/14/2008 12:52:22 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb: Originally posted by Bear_Music: In any case I have no problem whatsoever with the guy expressing his strong opinions, it's a big world and he's entitled to them. |
It wasn't the opinion that he doesn't like them that seemed objectionable, at least IMO, it was that he pretty much stated that he was going to punish anyone who he thought used the technique by giving it a 1, regardless of whether the image was a good image other than the processing technique.
That just seems unfair to me. |
From earlier in this thread...
Originally posted by Thaddeus_Smith: my comment on hdr voting was tongue-in-cheek and entirely pointless ..since i have yet to ever, and plan to never, vote in a challenge. i loved hdr when i first started looking at it. then it all started to look the same, and bland, and uninspiring ..boring. and most of the examples were poorly executed. |
Edit to correct a trailing part of his quote I accidentally left in.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 12:53:46. |
|
|
11/14/2008 01:10:16 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb: Originally posted by Bear_Music: In any case I have no problem whatsoever with the guy expressing his strong opinions, it's a big world and he's entitled to them. |
It wasn't the opinion that he doesn't like them that seemed objectionable, at least IMO, it was that he pretty much stated that he was going to punish anyone who he thought used the technique by giving it a 1, regardless of whether the image was a good image other than the processing technique.
That just seems unfair to me. |
It's quite possible he's just saying stuff like that to get a rise out of you. Look at his profile. # of votes....0 |
|
|
11/14/2008 01:15:30 PM · #99 |
My problem with any technique, HDR or otherwise, is when it is overdone and done poorly. Kinda like the old |
|
|
11/14/2008 02:37:47 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Citadel: I remember when the advanced ruleset was changed to allow HDR. A large proportion of the entries after that were HDR and tone mapped to death. I was thinking about leaving to be honest. |
For real? What's a large portion? 5%? If you go back and look, I bet it's hardly 1 in 20 shots. Surely we saw an increase (since it was officially legal), but I never remember a challenge where even 20% were HDR. |
|