DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> HDR 2 Show Your Scores
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 458, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/14/2009 10:42:54 AM · #126
50 vote check-in:

Votes: 50
Views: 104
Avg Vote: 5.7600
Comments: 1
09/14/2009 10:52:32 AM · #127
I think Judi's gripe (if she actually has one) is that when it comes to certain types of challenges HDR being one of them The Majority of Voters can be very one dimensional in what qualfications a photo needs to have to get a higher score. In other words. Some voters are just too damn picky. I am in the same boat with her. My score is sub-par and seems to have tapered off around 4.9 - 5.0 I am getting alot low votes and the occasional 6 to keep it from falling off the map. It is frustrating to put alot of effort forward and have it get voted into the dirt because the photo isn't tonemapped to death.

On that note, I will hush now until the challenge is over then I would hope some of you look at my photo and tell me what the hell I did wrong in processing so next time there is an HDR challenge I can make a photo that people will see fit for the challenge.
09/14/2009 11:02:31 AM · #128
I actually went to the other extreme. I thought that for this one challenge, some degree of overprocessing would be acceptable. To me, most HDR looks overprocessed but, in spite of it, I do like most of it. I even went as far as looking at all entries in the first HDR challenge and I didn't see too many low scoring "overprocessed" shots (but many high scoring overprocessed shots!). Most low scores (not all of them) just seemed like poor composition, no clear main subject, fuzzy focus or bad lighting.

So, while I think that except for the overprocessing, my entry is pretty strong, it is still very low 4s. When I compare it to the entries that scored this low in the 1st HDR challenge, I get really confused.
09/14/2009 11:09:17 AM · #129
half century check in...

Votes: 50
Views: 115
Avg Vote: 5.8000
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
09/14/2009 11:10:49 AM · #130
The post-challenge analysis of the scores and comments is going to be quite interesting. If nothing else, this will be a strong learning experience for all of us.
09/14/2009 12:21:32 PM · #131
Votes: 47
Views: 124
Avg Vote: 5.2979
Comments: 1
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/14/09 12:17 pm

I really liked mine. Thought it would do much better than this.
Guess I'm in good company.
I got the "overprocessed" as well.
09/14/2009 12:25:13 PM · #132
50 Checkin

Votes: 50
Views: 121
Avg Vote: 6.3200
Comments: 0

Comon guys .. show some love,
09/14/2009 12:39:05 PM · #133
Originally posted by dd1989:

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...


And how do you know which photos meet this definition, unless you've seen the originals? This reminds me of the fill flash challenge, if you've done it right you can barely tell, yet it needs to show or may be subject to DNMC.

Certainly HDR can be done in a natural way and only look like an exposure change was made.

Votes: 53
Views: 130
Avg Vote: 5.7925
Comments: 1
09/14/2009 01:45:36 PM · #134
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:

Avg Vote: 6.3200
Comon guys .. show some love,

Looks like you are getting more of it than most of the others here!

Getting a decent share of that love myself, though.
Votes: 59
Views: 137
Avg Vote: 6.0000
Comments: 3
09/14/2009 02:16:19 PM · #135
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:

Avg Vote: 6.3200
Comon guys .. show some love,

Looks like you are getting more of it than most of the others here!

Getting a decent share of that love myself, though.
Votes: 59
Views: 137
Avg Vote: 6.0000
Comments: 3


Steveeeeeeeeeee :P
My picture should be in the 7ssssssssss MoahahahahahHAHAHAH ** Cough cough ** HAHAHhahahahahahha
ehem .. I could've got into trouble because of this picture, I hope it tops, You'll be in for a good reading about taking this picture.
Best of luck :)
09/14/2009 02:29:19 PM · #136
Originally posted by AmeedEl-Ghoul:

My picture should be in the 7ssssssssss

Agreed, as should mine!
09/14/2009 02:36:10 PM · #137
Votes: 56
Views: 139
Avg Vote: 6.3571
Comments: 2
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0

Actually doing well for a change... then again, I think it's one of my best photos I've ever taken...

I am newer to HDR but a wise man on here told me that he liked Photomatix Pro.. there is a free download that watermarks your image or you pay $99 and it's yours... not bad... I bought it and LOVE it.

Also, A HUGE FYI for everyone..

not sure if this is common knowledge and if it sorry for bothering you all, but in Photomatix I have taken ONE photo, copied it twice and dragged all 3 copies into the box to create an HDR image... it then asks you how far apart you want to make the exposures (+/-) since they are all exposed the same. Then it makes a GREAT HDR image in my opinion from just ONE photo! Hope this helps you all.. give it a shot if you are always wishing you had 3 images but only have one with darker areas... it has done AMAZING things to some dark foreground sunset pics (for example) that I've had for a while that are now back to life! :)
09/14/2009 02:40:16 PM · #138
Originally posted by Ken:

Originally posted by dd1989:

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...


And how do you know which photos meet this definition, unless you've seen the originals? This reminds me of the fill flash challenge, if you've done it right you can barely tell, yet it needs to show or may be subject to DNMC.

Certainly HDR can be done in a natural way and only look like an exposure change was made.

Votes: 53
Views: 130
Avg Vote: 5.7925
Comments: 1


Well, the way I see it is fairly simple to be honest, if it doesn't look like what we come to know as a "HDR" - then why bother?
09/14/2009 02:41:25 PM · #139
My subtle take on the challenge is not going down too well:

Votes: 52
Views: 132
Avg Vote: 5.1923
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
Wish Lists: 0
Updated: 09/14/09 02:39 pm
09/14/2009 02:43:46 PM · #140
Originally posted by dd1989:

Well, the way I see it is fairly simple to be honest, if it doesn't look like what we come to know as a "HDR" - then why bother?

Everything has it's limits. Some of this reminds me of someone brand new to using Photoshop and wants to play with special effects. Usually they go WAY over the top until some control is learned. :-D
09/14/2009 02:44:55 PM · #141
Originally posted by dd1989:

Originally posted by Ken:

Originally posted by dd1989:

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...


And how do you know which photos meet this definition, unless you've seen the originals? This reminds me of the fill flash challenge, if you've done it right you can barely tell, yet it needs to show or may be subject to DNMC.

Certainly HDR can be done in a natural way and only look like an exposure change was made.

Votes: 53
Views: 130
Avg Vote: 5.7925
Comments: 1


Well, the way I see it is fairly simple to be honest, if it doesn't look like what we come to know as a "HDR" - then why bother?


I don't think he meant that it has to look HDR. There are just a few shots that you can look at the subject and get an idea of the lighting. There are one or two photos that really can't have significantly different levels. If I take a picture of a penny straight on, there's not a lot of HDR going on, just processing to make it look hdr. (haven't looked at all the photos. Hopefully there are no photos of pennies :D
09/14/2009 02:44:59 PM · #142
Originally posted by jumboshrimp:

... not sure if this is common knowledge and if it sorry for bothering you all, but in Photomatix I have taken ONE photo, copied it twice and dragged all 3 copies into the box to create an HDR image... it then asks you how far apart you want to make the exposures (+/-) since they are all exposed the same. Then it makes a GREAT HDR image in my opinion from just ONE photo! Hope this helps you all.. give it a shot if you are always wishing you had 3 images but only have one with darker areas... it has done AMAZING things to some dark foreground sunset pics (for example) that I've had for a while that are now back to life! :)

Thanks for the tip. I have Photomatix, but have never tried doing this. Will have to check it out!
09/14/2009 02:54:43 PM · #143
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jumboshrimp:

... not sure if this is common knowledge and if it sorry for bothering you all, but in Photomatix I have taken ONE photo, copied it twice and dragged all 3 copies into the box to create an HDR image... it then asks you how far apart you want to make the exposures (+/-) since they are all exposed the same. Then it makes a GREAT HDR image in my opinion from just ONE photo! Hope this helps you all.. give it a shot if you are always wishing you had 3 images but only have one with darker areas... it has done AMAZING things to some dark foreground sunset pics (for example) that I've had for a while that are now back to life! :)

Thanks for the tip. I have Photomatix, but have never tried doing this. Will have to check it out!


If you shoot in RAW, you can tonemap the image without making copies and you will end up with much the same result. Just open the RAW image in Photomatix and select tonemapping.

Alternatively, you can take the RAW image and make several copies in photoshop at different exposure levels and perform 'pseudo HDR'.

However, I have personally found that these methods generate much more noise especially in the darker areas than by using real HDR techniques using multiple authentic images.
09/14/2009 02:57:10 PM · #144
Back to the scores...

Votes: 56
Views: 129
Avg Vote: 5.7500
Comments: 0

I am actually kicking myself for the edit I posted. I failed to review this on a calibrated monitor. I apologize for hurting the voters eyes.
09/14/2009 02:57:45 PM · #145
Originally posted by Bugzeye:

You know the real reason you hang around has nothing at all to do with scores. What you really enjoy is telling others to Bite You!!!! My score sucks for the amount of effort I put into this challenge. Not to mention the 200 bucks I spent to upgrade from CS2 to CS4 just so my Adobe can read Raw Files from my camera. It drives me crazy to have people say it is not an HDR photo however because it is HDR, Just not overprocessed to the likings of many of the voters.



Ummm, why didn't you just use the free DNG converter? You could have converted them to a DNG, then opened them in CS2. (making sure you keep the original raw for validation of course) It would have saved you $200.
09/14/2009 03:04:47 PM · #146
Originally posted by Tammster:

I actually went to the other extreme. I thought that for this one challenge, some degree of overprocessing would be acceptable. To me, most HDR looks overprocessed but, in spite of it, I do like most of it. I even went as far as looking at all entries in the first HDR challenge and I didn't see too many low scoring "overprocessed" shots (but many high scoring overprocessed shots!). Most low scores (not all of them) just seemed like poor composition, no clear main subject, fuzzy focus or bad lighting.

So, while I think that except for the overprocessing, my entry is pretty strong, it is still very low 4s. When I compare it to the entries that scored this low in the 1st HDR challenge, I get really confused.


Unfortunately Tammster you have made a common mistake. The minds and desires of the DPC masses are a moving target. The original HDR challenge was years ago before it was as overused as it is now. That overprocessed look was something that was new and so people scored it highly because it was unique. Over the past couple of years the masses have been more and more unforgiving about what HDR they will like, and the overprocessed ones are taking a beating. (with some exceptions as always of course, but for the most part the overprocessed ones are getting right up there with shots of kittens and flowers for being voted down)
09/14/2009 03:18:08 PM · #147
I'm feeling better.
Votes: 56
Views: 131
Avg Vote: 5.3214
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
09/14/2009 04:20:48 PM · #148
Originally posted by bassbone:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jumboshrimp:

... not sure if this is common knowledge and if it sorry for bothering you all, but in Photomatix I have taken ONE photo, copied it twice and dragged all 3 copies into the box to create an HDR image... it then asks you how far apart you want to make the exposures (+/-) since they are all exposed the same. Then it makes a GREAT HDR image in my opinion from just ONE photo! Hope this helps you all.. give it a shot if you are always wishing you had 3 images but only have one with darker areas... it has done AMAZING things to some dark foreground sunset pics (for example) that I've had for a while that are now back to life! :)

Thanks for the tip. I have Photomatix, but have never tried doing this. Will have to check it out!


If you shoot in RAW, you can tonemap the image without making copies and you will end up with much the same result. Just open the RAW image in Photomatix and select tonemapping.

Alternatively, you can take the RAW image and make several copies in photoshop at different exposure levels and perform 'pseudo HDR'.

However, I have personally found that these methods generate much more noise especially in the darker areas than by using real HDR techniques using multiple authentic images.


It's a bit of a trade-off between other problems that result in taking real multiple exposures, I found even with tripod, mirror lock and self timer, there's always that microscopic movement when pressing the shutter button, I need to find a cheap IR Remote for this sort of stuff!
09/14/2009 04:38:58 PM · #149
Originally posted by dd1989:

It's a bit of a trade-off between other problems that result in taking real multiple exposures, I found even with tripod, mirror lock and self timer, there's always that microscopic movement when pressing the shutter button, I need to find a cheap IR Remote for this sort of stuff!

Most of the better HDR tools out on the market have an alignment feature. Some are much harder to use than others. Some of these alignment tools are simplistic, while others allow alignment based on pitch, yaw, roll movements. I use Dynamic Photo HDR and it support these types of alignment corrections...

' . substr('//www.mediachance.com/hdri/help/clip0015.jpg', strrpos('//www.mediachance.com/hdri/help/clip0015.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

09/14/2009 04:45:53 PM · #150
Originally posted by bassbone:



If you shoot in RAW, you can tonemap the image without making copies and you will end up with much the same result. Just open the RAW image in Photomatix and select tonemapping.

Alternatively, you can take the RAW image and make several copies in photoshop at different exposure levels and perform 'pseudo HDR'.

However, I have personally found that these methods generate much more noise especially in the darker areas than by using real HDR techniques using multiple authentic images.


Is there any real advantage to making the copies in photoshop vs using a single raw? I've done it both ways but gave up on the photoshop method of creating different "exposures".
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 02/19/2020 03:28:15 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/19/2020 03:28:15 PM EST.