File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi again /p/
Looking for honest critique on my latest photo.
It's a... *gasp*.. HDR shot. :<
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:05 20:47:07F-Numberf/3.5ISO Speed Rating100Focal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width626Image Height910
>> Anonymous
if thats HDR then im FDR
>> Anonymous
>>108560
what the hell is FDR :D
>> Anonymous
>>108561
dead american president
>> Anonymous
Bitches don't know about my DOF in HDR
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
another one, taken later that day

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:05 21:18:04Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width669Image Height910RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>108559
>>108586
These are both win
>> Anonymous
>>108560
Maybe he's one of these fake HDR fags who thinks processing RAW three times and merging is HDR?
>> Anonymous
The first one is pure money, the second one less so. The first one is in your face with an interesting subject.

The second one seems to be more like "Hey go stand over there." Lacks a strong defining message. Technically good though it feels slightly off center and the sign on the booth is too bright.
>> Anonymous
>>108559


hawt
>> Anonymous
i like the first one too.
>> Anonymous
Funny that you used HDR and still managed to come up with a photo that has no shadow detail.
>> pskaught
both really good. the second one needs some leveling.

and that is one androgynous looking asian
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>108560
>>108593
>>108630
ITT fags who don't know shit about HDR.
Shut up more next time.

>>108589
Thanks ac, you're always so nice to me =D

>>108643
I agree twice, I'm very thankful of my gf though.. always willing to model for me. :]

>>108596
Thanks heaps for the honest critique.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:06 06:42:46Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width797Image Height379RenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>108682
>>108682

But it does not look like it needed to be merged for hdring seeing that in the first pic you can see everything
>> Anonymous
>>108688
ITT someone who doesn't understand the point of HDR.
HDR allows you to capture more levels of low range, mid range and high range in contrast.
Achieving the same effect with 1 photo (possibly raw) would require much more post work (selecting areas with the ever so fun lasso, feather.. curves, etc)
But yea, that's fun.. right? Spending more time than you need to.

Stop being a little bitch >:D
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>108688
In the first picture, a little of the clouds is blown out, and the face is already a little on the dark side. HDR allowed him to maintain detail where he wanted it in the final product.
>> Anonymous
>>108699
Thank... you.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Just realised it's another AusFag
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
I've never done HDR, but HDRfags always yell at the people who take one photo in RAW and spit out three different images and merge them.

So I'm with>>108593. It's a nice picture, but I dunno if it's "true HDR", whatever that means.
>> Anonymous
>>108682
What I don't get is, it looks slightly windy by the looks of some stands of hair on her head, and in the final picture there isn't a hair out of place; and she held the same position enough to not blur it.

I'm calling shenanigans.
>> Anonymous
>>108696

fag
>> Anonymous
>>108712
It is true HDR.. like all my other HDRs
http://beethy.deviantart.com/art/work-in-progress-73836548
http://beethy.deviantart.com/art/cross-73295763
Why would I bother lying?

>>108713
It's called 'Prevent ghosting' at high priority. That and a bit of photoshop.


What I want all you fags in disbelief to try.. is to take the 3 images, and try HDR it (i know they're small, but it'll work) ..
it will match up perfectly.
I have a very steady hand :]
>> Anonymous
>>108560
>>108562
>>108593
>>108630
>>108688
>>108713
>>108724
ITT samefag
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>108730

I'm sorry, but i don't think you understand what HDR actually means. This is not a true HDR.

If only i could be bothered to find articles.
>> Anonymous
>>108736
>>108736

ITT faggot fails
>> Anonymous
>>108740
It is a true HDR, but with values more toned down than what you're used to (like my stuff I've linked to).
It is a combination of 3 photos, shot at different times.. at AEB -2 and +2.
THAT'S TRUE HDR, NAMEFAG >:D
Like.. all.. my.. other.. HDR's. The only difference here is the post processing, I went for a softer less harsh look.

Seriously though.. I don't really care anymore if /p/ thinks it's 'true' HDR in their eyes.
So far I haven't actually received any negative crits on the first photo I've posted, so I feel pretty good about it now.
>> Anonymous
>>108746
she's hot
>> Anonymous
>>108712

Suck a dick sv. No-one fucking likes you anyways. Get a new tripcode, or better yet drop it. Don't sully ac's 2 lettere'd name.

Also OP, Jeremo's being rather constructive and you're telling him to fuck off. Chill.
>> Anonymous
>>108755
Oh.. he's being constructive..?

>>108707
>>108740
Wait, where?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>108755

OP... again, you have no idea what true HDR actually is. The mere fact that you've tonmapped it means it's NOT a True HDR.

You have to understand that the HDR we create in PS does not even exceed colour space let alone expand the dynamic range of the image.

It merely extrapolates the image information from as wide a range of stops as possible by means of adjusting the capture equipment to isolate on a limited range and then reassembling those separate captures to form one extremely unnatural final image. In these HDR image, we're not seeing darker blacks or whiter whites, it's still 0-255 per channel


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/04/brightside_hdr_edr/8

http://www.dolby.com/promo/hdr/technology.html

And don't get you tits in a twist cause someone disagrees with you.
>> Anonymous
>>108760
>>108746

OP stop being such a cry baby faggot. My camera does 5 bracket shots if i combine those 5 images does that make it a TRUER HDR than your 3 image combined HDR? Read what you write dumbass before you have a sulk at /p/ appreciate the honesty or GTFO.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
so if i take a film shot (with its 5x dynamic range compared to digital) does that automagically make it HDR?

HUH?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>108755
>Don't sully ac's 2 lettere'd name.
Yeah! Sullying my 2 letter'd name is *my* job!

Also: Who really gives a good goddamn whether or not it's HDR? It's a good picture. I don't care if he made it by combining three, twelve, one, or ten-thousand twenty-four images.

Here's the facts as I understand 'em:
1. "HDR" images are, by definition, images with a higher dynamic range than the sensor could take.
2. You can make an HDR image by combining multiple bracketed exposures into one file.
3. HDR images cannot, as such, be displayed on a computer monitor or printout because monitors and paper don't have enough dynamic range to handle even the full dynamic range of an average piece of film.
4. To show people an HDR image, therefore, it's necessary to tonemap it into a space that the monitor can display. Once that's done, it's technically not an HDR image anymore.
5. Nobody goddamn cares that it's not technically an HDR image anymore except for whiny pedantic jerks who get off on being annoyed with people for not using terms in the way that they claim is right, despite the fact that English is a living language and therefore constantly growing and evolving.

Pro Tip: Just don't mention it's an HDR or tone mapped shot in the future. You'll save yourself a lot of flamewarring.
>> Anonymous
>>108785

Ummm it would be higher dynamic range. That's all.

I don't see why HDR gets so much fucking stick all the time from people. There is a mixture of snobbery and trendiness about it all.

Manipulating digital images to make them better might be 'easy'. It might be easy to a pro who knows what they are doing, and it might be complicated to a newbie. Everyone was a newbie once. Newbies may not do what you think is right and you might think you are 'above' HDR or anything else newbies come up with. That doesn't make it right for people to talk trash to them, call them names or denounce their work as complete shit.

The OP's post is not the greatest pic ever taken. Some people might not like it. Some people may like the subject but call it shit because it is a combination of 3 exposures and some post processing.

So fucking what? I bet when retail film processing labs and machines were invented and dark rooms faded away to be used less and less the same arguments came up about traditions being ruined.

Now the digital revolution is here and there are going to be literally millions of people using moderately priced DSLRs and becoming interested in photography.

If they want to use HDR as a technique, what is the problem with that, even if you don't like it?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>108792
HDR = high dynamic range, c wat i did thar?

HDR has suddenly become a lot easier to do, which is why its more popular, that is all.
>> Anonymous
>>108791
>>108792
Thanks, both of you.

ac, you're right though.. mentioning a shot is HDR only creates a piss/shit/pukestorm.
I guess I did learn something :] hehe
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>108792

Okay, hyperbole. No one is really giving him that much shit about doing HDRs at all, in fact most people have praised the work.

I have not said anything negative about his work nor about HDRs.

So who are you getting defensive against?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>108791

Well i'm sorry but AC you've missed the point.

First this isn't a shit storm, and it certainly didn't get this far because of 'HDR'. It was only in response to the 'TRUE HDR' statement that i started.

I've used and posted HDR on /p/ myself. So that's not the problem.

>>108795

I doubt you've learnt anything since i doubt you read what i wrote and the articles i posted. But keep telling people what you do is TRUE HDR.

For the record. I like the original shot, the toning of the colour is nice and i always give props to Ausfags.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I rather like both of your shots, OP.
>> Anonymous
>>108802
hay, nothing against you at all btw..
i like your presence on /p/
glad you don't mind the shot

>>108805
thanks :]
>> Anonymous
>>108802
STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU STFU
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>108559
>>108682

I don't see any reason for taking three different shots. I bet you could have achieved the same results just by taking one correctly exposured RAW photo.
And I bet one S curve would have been all the photo needed.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>108842

Agreed! One correct exposure is all that was needed. Learn to do advanced work with raw files and life is even easier when you get it into photoshop. HDR has its place, but is totally unnecessary the vast majority of the time, and very, VERY few people actually use it in such a way that it's anything more than just a gimmick.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>108844
i think this is a good use of HDR. It isnt OMGHDRBLOOOM but you just get a well exposed shot.

I think its more common because of the much more limited range of digital than film, its harder to capture scenes.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>108847
The shot posted originally still doesn't justify the use of HDR. It could have been just as well, if not better, with a lot less work with a single, properly-exposed RAW file processed into 16-bit.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>108842
>>108844
>>108847
>>108851

In fact, I tried to achieve the same results by using only the first image of>>108682
And if you ask me, I did quite good redoing the photo, considering what kind of source I had.
It's not one to one, but close enough to proof my the point!
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
     File :-(, x)
>>108852

Oh yeah... I should have included the photo too in my post.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:01:06 03:44:59Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>108851
Definitely unneccessary use of HDR
photo has value but lrn2 to use correct exposure
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
I should note that while I maintain my point regarding the HDR, I still do like the photo in question.
>> Mesh !!/BUEfj+JBnB
>>108853
I really like both, the hdr'd one has grown on me, more sad lonely asian girl :D
>> Anonymous
>>108876
wat?
she's not azn
>> Anonymous
>>108880
ya she is
>> Anonymous
>>108881
oh... ok
>> Anonymous
>>108852
>>108859
OP here.
In a way I can agree with the both of you.. I can shoot correct exposure, but I'm a JPGfag.
I don't like using the software used to post process RAW. Tried it before, didn't like it.
This one: http://beethy.deviantart.com/art/far-65006436
was processed from RAW.. it achieved a similar effect to HDR but to me it just didn't feel as easy or smooth (processing wise).

I've only discovered HDR say.. a month ago, and I see a huge window of options.
I'd like to keep trying new things with it.. :]
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>108970
>I've only discovered HDR say.. a month ago, and I see a huge window of options.
Switch HDR for RAW and you've got me. I really do recommend shooting RAW. Find some software that'll let you use it more easily. It's great stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>108972
Any recommendations, ac? Did not like lightroom or Phase One.
Only ones I've tried.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>108974
Not really. I'm a Linuxfag, so I use GIMP and ufraw.
>> Anonymous
I read the whole thread.

What a huge fucking faggot OP is.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
OVER 9000 HDR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/1764112101/

Ugh. Fill light, I'm guessing?
>> Anonymous
>>109015

thats beyond unnecessary, into absolutely disgusting. I can't believe how many "OMG PRETY COLORS GRATE JOB" comments that got.
>> Anonymous
>>109015
Thx. I vomited a little bit and swallowed it.
>> Anonymous
>>108630
>> Chib
you are right the pebbles in the front look awesome
i love your subtle use of the hdr anna
great series
-lawl @ flicker
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Lol on that photostream... what the fuck...

that cat pic is absolutely fucked...That's not even HDR... it's just shit tonemapping hahaha
>> Anonymous
>>108995
gtfo or stop whining.


Nice picture, btw. Not a fan of the second, but first is great.
>> Anonymous
>>109015
OP here

WHAT THE FAGGOT IS THAT
>> Anonymous
>>109036

terrible, terrible photography(I'm hesitant to even call it photography). All of her pictures are shitty. Take a look at this "HDR" winrar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/1800301251/in/photostream/
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>109038

It is so badly done I can't help but wonder if this is a massive hoax.
>> Anonymous
>>109039

Its stunning how people are climbing on top of one another to suck her dick. Read some of those comments. I want to puke.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/1732770939/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/2144733500/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anna_greece/1764112101/

Very subtle use of the HDR processing there.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>109041

I just read through some of them and it's bizarre. Why are they all pandering to her? There's shots there that aren't just bland or poorly done, but actually hideous.
>> Anonymous
>>109042

Her photos are so unique and original! Most people use HDR to enhance or make their pictures more interesting (albeit unnecessarily). She is so cutting edge, she uses it to turn shitty pictures into even shittier ones.
>> Anonymous
>>109042
jesus fuck

seriously, what the shit is wrong with people on flickr?


JESUS FUCK
>> Anonymous
it seems that flickr is even worse than deviantart.
>> Anonymous
>>109046
There's a reason /p/ is the only photo board I use.
>> Anonymous
>>109047

Well, it depends on which group you join. The ones that give out .gif animated medals and shit are the ones to avoid
>> Anonymous
>>109047
deviantArt is shit! fucking asshole admins.. 3 years ago, before the takeover it was alright.. before that even better.. now there are /b/tards all over the place..
disgraceful
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>109029

How about you STFU and stop encouraging trolls or GTFO?

Fuckin hell... she's turned down (or off) light smoothing... those photos are absoutely hideous...

How the hell did you find that shit?
>> Anonymous
>>109053

Take a random dip into flickr and you'll find this shit floating on the top.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>109055

Lol.. nah, i don't bother with Flickr anymore. Got sick of all the whores.
>> Anonymous
>>109042

clearly visible != subtle
>> Anonymous
but the original pics of that cat are nice. Why did she raped the pics
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
I hope she has stats turned on and she finds us all shit talking her shit pseudo-HDR picture.

Did you hear me Anna Grease? Stop post-post-post-processing your pictures.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
tonne maping would suck in a shot like that
or hdr


or whatever you call it
>> Anonymous
>>108995
>>108630
Fuckin signed. What a little bitch OP is. Has no idea what HDR actually is and uses it in a situation where it's unwarranted and claims it to be a true HDR.

Well OP, you're a true dipshit.

Still, i like the composition of the second one. The model looks hilarious.
>> Anonymous
so OP, how are these processed exactly?

could you write a guide or something for nubs?
>> Anonymous
>>109158
photomatix pro levels and tweaks.. then usually major fixes through photoshop
i'll be posting stuff on how i process my work on my dA soon.
keep an eye on it: http://beethy.deviantart.com/
>> Anonymous
Typical emo shitty deviantart snapshots. Fuck off and take some pictures of your shoes in HDR.

Stop encouraging these people, AC, god damn it.
>> Anonymous
>>109241
don't judge a photographer based on 1 photo, failfag
>> Anonymous
>>109272
There's 2 photo's in this thread and a link to a deviantart; what made you think it was based on a single picture?
>> Anonymous
>>109360

LOL Deviant fag got owned.
>> Anonymous
>>109272

don't take it personally Beethy, your TRUE HDR are just hit and miss. The actual photos themselves aren't bad, but drop this TRUE HDR shit.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
     File :-(, x)
>>109450

ture HDR winrar with over 9000 HDRS

I think I've got that Anne Greece lady beat.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern682Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:06 23:57:57Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
I EXPOSE ON MUTHA FUCKIN GLASS NIGGAS! THATS TRUE HDR!
>> Anonymous
>>108559
first pic is win. I'd fap on her.
>> Anonymous
I expose on glass too, but the police caught up with me in the end. :(
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
lol

Not that I want to encourage it, but if TRUE HDR becomes the next meme i will kill everyone on Flickr.
>> beethy
>>109515
haha
>> Anonymous
To photoshop you need 4 basic things:
1. Imagination
2. A lot of spare time
3. A steady hand
4. A photoshop program. I use Adope Photoshop 7.