Bad HDR shot of the day

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 27, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Mike Guest

    On 27/05/2011 3:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/pho...-badlands-queenston-shale-mark-shannon-photo/
    >>

    >
    > WTF!
    > 18
    >>

    > shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    > This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >
    > ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    > Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    > 'splainin' to do.
    >


    What's the difference between a BA in Visual Communictions, and a large
    pizza? A large pizza can feed a family of three...
     
    Mike, May 27, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    > >http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...

    >
    > WTF!
    > 18
    >
    > shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    > This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >
    > ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    > Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    > 'splainin' to do.
    >


    There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing about
    gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.
     
    RichA, May 28, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    MC Guest

    RichA wrote:

    > On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > > On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    > >
    > > >

    http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    > >
    > > WTF!
    > > 18
    > >
    > > shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    > > This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    > >
    > > ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    > > Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    > > 'splainin' to do.
    > >

    >
    > There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    > power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing about
    > gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    > seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.


    It is if it is used "for the sake of". However, there are situations
    when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    other method will produce the result needed. Having said that, it
    should only be used in extreme cases and only to obtain the actual HDR
    and not an overprocessed, unnatural eyesore. I do certainly object to
    some pro photographers (especially photo journalists) creating these
    "unnatural" looking images just for the sake of dramatic effect.

    MC
     
    MC, May 28, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > > > On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:

    >
    > http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > > WTF!
    > > > 18

    >
    > > > shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    > > > This is an "aspiring professional photographer?

    >
    > > > ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    > > > Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    > > > 'splainin' to do.

    >
    > > There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    > > power towers with large format gear.  But the horrifying thing about
    > > gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    > > seeing it show up in ads.  Truly distressing.

    >
    > It is if it is used "for the sake of".  However, there are situations
    > when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    > other method will produce the result needed.  


    I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    mostly the silly, garish stuff.
     
    RichA, May 29, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <> wrote:
    >>> RichA wrote:
    >>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

    >> :
    >>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> WTF!
    >>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>
    >>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>
    >>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>> power towers with large format gear.  But the horrifying thing about
    >>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>> seeing it show up in ads.  Truly distressing.
    >>>
    >>> It is if it is used "for the sake of".  However, there are situations
    >>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>> other method will produce the result needed.  

    >>
    >> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >> mostly the silly, garish stuff.

    >
    >Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg >


    The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.

    I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    subject, you do it well.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 29, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <> wrote:
    >>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>> :
    >>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>> power towers with large format gear.  But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>> seeing it show up in ads.  Truly distressing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of".  However, there are situations
    >>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>> other method will produce the result needed.  
    >>>>
    >>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>
    >>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg >

    >>
    >> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>
    >> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >> subject, you do it well.

    >
    >That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.


    That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    appreciative of what others do when it's done right.

    To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    like sky.

    Your
    >interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >
    >Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg >


    Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?

    The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    themselves to dark and foreboding.

    I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.

    The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    off the tractor.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 29, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:20 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-05-29 09:50:40 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>>>> power towers with large format gear.  But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads.  Truly distressing.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of".  However, there are situations
    >>>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.  
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg >
    >>>>
    >>>> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >>>> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >>>> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>>>
    >>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>
    >>> That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.

    >>
    >> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>
    >> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >> like sky.
    >>
    >> Your
    >>> interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >>> little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >>>
    >>> Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg >

    >>
    >> Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    >> well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    >> of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?
    >>
    >> The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    >> foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    >> on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    >> skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    >> themselves to dark and foreboding.
    >>
    >> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>
    >> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >> off the tractor.

    >
    >So perhaps this is the sort of treatment you are talking about?
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC1007Mw.jpg >


    That's much better. To me, the grass around the tractor is still too
    bright. Tone that down, and you have a good photograph.

    A question, though...is the real grass the bright green or what I
    expect? I don't see real grass that is bright green like that, but
    that may be because of what I'm used to seeing here in Florida.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 29, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 14:53:58 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-05-29 14:39:23 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:20 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-05-29 09:50:40 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>>>>>> power towers with large format gear.  But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads.  Truly distressing.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of".  However, there are situations
    >>>>>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.  
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>>>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>>>>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>>>>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>>>>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>>>>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>>>>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg >
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >>>>>> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >>>>>> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >>>> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >>>> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>>>
    >>>> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >>>> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >>>> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >>>> like sky.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your
    >>>>> interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >>>>> little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg >
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    >>>> well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    >>>> of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?
    >>>>
    >>>> The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    >>>> foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    >>>> on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    >>>> skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    >>>> themselves to dark and foreboding.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >>>> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >>>> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>>>
    >>>> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >>>> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >>>> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >>>> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >>>> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >>>> off the tractor.
    >>>
    >>> So perhaps this is the sort of treatment you are talking about?
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC1007Mw.jpg >

    >>
    >> That's much better. To me, the grass around the tractor is still too
    >> bright. Tone that down, and you have a good photograph.
    >>
    >> A question, though...is the real grass the bright green or what I
    >> expect? I don't see real grass that is bright green like that, but
    >> that may be because of what I'm used to seeing here in Florida.

    >
    >That was Spring after a particularly wet Winter when the hills are
    >almost radiant green. Three more weeks and you would be looking at
    >straw.


    I meant to ask...what do you think of the two versions? It's your
    photo. Which do you prefer?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 30, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 12:50 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    <snip>>


    >
    > That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    > photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    > appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >
    > To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    > that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    > field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    > like sky.
    >

    <snip>


    > I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    > the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    > and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >
    > The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    > shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    > don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    > be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    > the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    > off the tractor.
    >



    To me a landscape need not have an extraneous object. The entire scene
    itself can be interesting if done right. I am the first to admit that a
    lot of my own landscape images may need that "Indian in a red canoe," to
    add a center of interest. But, many do not need that extraneous object.
    As for HDR, I personally do not like the HDR effect, which can be an art
    form all by itself. I have already posted HDR images to the SI. In any
    that I posted I have used HDR simply to extend the dynamic range.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 5:39 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:20 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2011-05-29 09:50:40 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>>>>> power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of". However, there are situations
    >>>>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>>>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>>>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>>>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>>>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>>>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >>>>> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >>>>> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.
    >>>
    >>> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >>> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >>> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>>
    >>> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >>> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >>> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >>> like sky.
    >>>
    >>> Your
    >>>> interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >>>> little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >>>>
    >>>> Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    >>> well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    >>> of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?
    >>>
    >>> The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    >>> foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    >>> on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    >>> skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    >>> themselves to dark and foreboding.
    >>>
    >>> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >>> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >>> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>>
    >>> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >>> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >>> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >>> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >>> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >>> off the tractor.

    >>
    >> So perhaps this is the sort of treatment you are talking about?
    >> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC1007Mw.jpg>

    >
    > That's much better. To me, the grass around the tractor is still too
    > bright. Tone that down, and you have a good photograph.
    >
    > A question, though...is the real grass the bright green or what I
    > expect? I don't see real grass that is bright green like that, but
    > that may be because of what I'm used to seeing here in Florida.
    >


    Sorry, that is an image of a tractor. I would have toned down the
    tractor and worked with the background to eliminate the haze. Rather
    than show an image of a tractor, it then becomes an image of a field,
    that happens to have a tractor in it.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:

    >
    > I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    > complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    > subject, you do it well.
    >


    I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
    expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
    intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 9:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-29 17:52:11 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
    >> expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
    >> intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.

    >
    > Not to me he doesn't. No justification for comments required.
    > Tony has his taste and opinions, and his comments on my work I find
    > thought provoking. That can lead me in different directions. There are
    > certainly times I could be aimed down a different path. Just another
    > reason I enjoy the SI.
    > It is also good to have a reasonably thick skin. ;-)
    >
    > ...and I won't add another shot of that tractor cluttering up all that
    > open space.
    >


    Yup! Almost all well intentioned comments some food for thinking,
    especially when they disagree with the POV in my images.

    I don't want to start a war, but I may very well have a thicker skin
    than you :)
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:22:14 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/29/2011 12:50 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    ><snip>>
    >
    >
    >>
    >> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>
    >> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >> like sky.
    >>

    ><snip>
    >
    >
    >> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>
    >> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >> off the tractor.
    >>

    >
    >
    >To me a landscape need not have an extraneous object. The entire scene
    >itself can be interesting if done right. I am the first to admit that a
    >lot of my own landscape images may need that "Indian in a red canoe," to
    >add a center of interest. But, many do not need that extraneous object.
    >As for HDR, I personally do not like the HDR effect, which can be an art
    >form all by itself. I have already posted HDR images to the SI. In any
    >that I posted I have used HDR simply to extend the dynamic range.


    I think you've interpreted the comments the wrong way. The image
    started out as a photograph of a tractor in a field. The comments
    were not about whether or not the tractor was needed, but where the
    emphasis should be placed in the processing.

    I commented about the initial composition saying that I'd either
    compose tighter on the tractor and make it a tractor shot or move back
    and make it a landscape shot with the tractor minimalized. I didn't
    say anything about needing the tractor in the shot. The HDR treatment
    of the tractor-only works well with the rest of the image looking more
    natural.

    I did say that a photograph does need a feature to be interesting (as
    opposed to a bunch of rocks and trees), but that doesn't mean it needs
    an extraneous object. I've seen some marvelous landscape shots taken
    in the desert, but they've featured a particular formation, cacti,
    sunrise/sunset, or other non-extraneous aspect.






    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 30, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:28:49 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/29/2011 5:39 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:20 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-05-29 09:50:40 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>>>>>> power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of". However, there are situations
    >>>>>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>>>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>>>>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>>>>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>>>>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>>>>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>>>>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >>>>>> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >>>>>> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >>>> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >>>> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>>>
    >>>> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >>>> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >>>> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >>>> like sky.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your
    >>>>> interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >>>>> little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    >>>> well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    >>>> of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?
    >>>>
    >>>> The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    >>>> foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    >>>> on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    >>>> skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    >>>> themselves to dark and foreboding.
    >>>>
    >>>> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >>>> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >>>> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>>>
    >>>> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >>>> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >>>> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >>>> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >>>> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >>>> off the tractor.
    >>>
    >>> So perhaps this is the sort of treatment you are talking about?
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC1007Mw.jpg>

    >>
    >> That's much better. To me, the grass around the tractor is still too
    >> bright. Tone that down, and you have a good photograph.
    >>
    >> A question, though...is the real grass the bright green or what I
    >> expect? I don't see real grass that is bright green like that, but
    >> that may be because of what I'm used to seeing here in Florida.
    >>

    >
    >Sorry, that is an image of a tractor. I would have toned down the
    >tractor and worked with the background to eliminate the haze. Rather
    >than show an image of a tractor, it then becomes an image of a field,
    >that happens to have a tractor in it.


    I really don't see that working. The tractor is too prominent in the
    image to make it an image of a field that happens to have a tractor in
    it. To make it that - which could work out very well - the photograph
    would have to have been taken with the photographer 50 to 100 yards
    back.

    However, we can't re-take the photograph unless this field and tractor
    happens to be in the Duck's back yard. What we can do is work on the
    processing with what we have.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 30, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:52:11 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >> subject, you do it well.
    >>

    >
    >I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
    >expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
    >intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.



    It doesn't hurt to remind people that we do like their other stuff
    even though we are taking issue with one particular image. I'm
    sensitive to criticism of my images, and assume everyone else is.

    Typically, my reaction to criticism of my images is first thinking
    "Idiot! I like it better my way", and then I look again and start
    thinking "Hey, that might work better after all", or - at the very
    least - "I should have considered that".

    The only person I could never both pan and praise was Sisker. I never
    found one to praise.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 30, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 29 May 2011 21:33:40 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 5/29/2011 9:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2011-05-29 17:52:11 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
    >>> expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
    >>> intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.

    >>
    >> Not to me he doesn't. No justification for comments required.
    >> Tony has his taste and opinions, and his comments on my work I find
    >> thought provoking. That can lead me in different directions. There are
    >> certainly times I could be aimed down a different path. Just another
    >> reason I enjoy the SI.
    >> It is also good to have a reasonably thick skin. ;-)
    >>
    >> ...and I won't add another shot of that tractor cluttering up all that
    >> open space.
    >>

    >
    >Yup! Almost all well intentioned comments some food for thinking,
    >especially when they disagree with the POV in my images.
    >
    >I don't want to start a war, but I may very well have a thicker skin
    >than you :)
    >Peter


    It's funny, but when someone says "That image is crap" about one of
    mine, I let it roll off and don't pay any attention. But, when they
    say "I like the image, but you should have..." and make a small
    correction, I bristle. I then start re-assessing the photo to force
    myself to view the correction as a neutral observer.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, May 30, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 10:49 PM, tony cooper wrote:

    >
    > The only person I could never both pan and praise was Sisker. I never
    > found one to praise.
    >
    >




    I try to pan or praise images, not people. (Except of course, if the
    people become obnoxious.)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 10:42 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:28:49 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/29/2011 5:39 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:19:20 -0700, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2011-05-29 09:50:40 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:39:16 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2011-05-29 08:19:16 -0700, tony cooper<> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 07:47:25 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
    >>>>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/photo-of-the-week/cheltenham-badlands...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> WTF!
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
    >>>>>>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
    >>>>>>>>>>> power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing about
    >>>>>>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
    >>>>>>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of". However, there are situations
    >>>>>>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
    >>>>>>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
    >>>>>>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
    >>>>>>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
    >>>>>>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
    >>>>>>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
    >>>>>>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
    >>>>>>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
    >>>>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The problem is that it's an uninteresting shot with any treatment.
    >>>>>>> That's what we see too much: uninteresting shots pimped up with HDR
    >>>>>>> in an attempt to make them interesting. Pigs and lipstick.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
    >>>>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
    >>>>>>> subject, you do it well.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That's OK, but then you are not much of a landscape type of guy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >>>>> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >>>>> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >>>>> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >>>>> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >>>>> like sky.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your
    >>>>>> interests seem to be more with the odd and quirky character shots, a
    >>>>>> little urban decay, along with the passing parade.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Here is one with a little rural decay. ;-)
    >>>>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, that does appeal to me a little bit more, but it's not a
    >>>>> well-composed photograph. Is it a photo of an old tractor or a photo
    >>>>> of a tractor out in a field and that is part of a landscape?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The biggest problem for me is the disparity between the sky and the
    >>>>> foreground. It's like the sky was shot on one day and the foreground
    >>>>> on another. I don't know why HDR enthusiasts like dark and foreboding
    >>>>> skies, especially when the other features of the image don't lend
    >>>>> themselves to dark and foreboding.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >>>>> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >>>>> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >>>>> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >>>>> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >>>>> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >>>>> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >>>>> off the tractor.
    >>>>
    >>>> So perhaps this is the sort of treatment you are talking about?
    >>>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC1007Mw.jpg>
    >>>
    >>> That's much better. To me, the grass around the tractor is still too
    >>> bright. Tone that down, and you have a good photograph.
    >>>
    >>> A question, though...is the real grass the bright green or what I
    >>> expect? I don't see real grass that is bright green like that, but
    >>> that may be because of what I'm used to seeing here in Florida.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Sorry, that is an image of a tractor. I would have toned down the
    >> tractor and worked with the background to eliminate the haze. Rather
    >> than show an image of a tractor, it then becomes an image of a field,
    >> that happens to have a tractor in it.

    >
    > I really don't see that working. The tractor is too prominent in the
    > image to make it an image of a field that happens to have a tractor in
    > it. To make it that - which could work out very well - the photograph
    > would have to have been taken with the photographer 50 to 100 yards
    > back.
    >
    > However, we can't re-take the photograph unless this field and tractor
    > happens to be in the Duck's back yard. What we can do is work on the
    > processing with what we have.



    Interesting how both of us have a different feeling about the same image.

    Though I will have to play with the Duck's image and really see if I
    agree or not.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/29/2011 10:33 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:22:14 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/29/2011 12:50 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> <snip>>
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> That's true, but my "not much" means I don't have an interest in
    >>> photographing landscape scenes. That doesn't mean I can't be
    >>> appreciative of what others do when it's done right.
    >>>
    >>> To me, an interesting landscape has to have an interesting feature
    >>> that prominently figures in. Your linked photo just snatches a wide
    >>> field view of rocks and trees and includes a sky that doesn't look
    >>> like sky.
    >>>

    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>
    >>> I would have shot the tractor much tighter or gone 'way back and shot
    >>> the landscape with the tractor as man's contribution to the landscape
    >>> and the impermanence of what man contributes compared to nature.
    >>>
    >>> The tractor is well done with the HDR treatment, but the rest of the
    >>> shot competes too much with the tractor. Nature isn't this garish. I
    >>> don't do HDR, and don't know if this is possible, but think this would
    >>> be done better masking the tractor and treating only the tractor with
    >>> the HDR effect and leaving the surroundings untouched. That would set
    >>> off the tractor.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> To me a landscape need not have an extraneous object. The entire scene
    >> itself can be interesting if done right. I am the first to admit that a
    >> lot of my own landscape images may need that "Indian in a red canoe," to
    >> add a center of interest. But, many do not need that extraneous object.
    >> As for HDR, I personally do not like the HDR effect, which can be an art
    >> form all by itself. I have already posted HDR images to the SI. In any
    >> that I posted I have used HDR simply to extend the dynamic range.

    >
    > I think you've interpreted the comments the wrong way. The image
    > started out as a photograph of a tractor in a field. The comments
    > were not about whether or not the tractor was needed, but where the
    > emphasis should be placed in the processing.
    >


    Oops!! I sent too fast.
    I did not mean over processing the background, but merely decreasing
    some of the haze. For me the background haze is annoying.


    > I commented about the initial composition saying that I'd either
    > compose tighter on the tractor and make it a tractor shot or move back
    > and make it a landscape shot with the tractor minimalized. I didn't
    > say anything about needing the tractor in the shot. The HDR treatment
    > of the tractor-only works well with the rest of the image looking more
    > natural.
    >
    > I did say that a photograph does need a feature to be interesting (as
    > opposed to a bunch of rocks and trees), but that doesn't mean it needs
    > an extraneous object. I've seen some marvelous landscape shots taken
    > in the desert, but they've featured a particular formation, cacti,
    > sunrise/sunset, or other non-extraneous aspect.
    >
    >


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 30, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,990
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    512
  3. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,240
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
  4. cowboyz

    bad bad day- monitor problem

    cowboyz, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    487
  5. Liam O'Connor
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    143
    Liam O'Connor
    May 13, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page