Dining Out

rwells

Ready for the lunch crowd in Santa Fe, NM

eL eSs Vee

I like this. In every way. I see a poster on your wall.

rwells

eL eSs Vee wrote:

I like this. In every way. I see a poster on your wall.

Thanks Lee,

See, I can do "normal" ~ kinda, sorta, arrg... It's KILLING ME

Dogdots

I like the angle you took this photo from. My knees are hurting just thinking of having to get up after taking it

So ya jumped back into the box for awhile

rwells

Dogdots wrote:

I like the angle you took this photo from. My knees are hurting just thinking of having to get up after taking it

So ya jumped back into the box for awhile

Yeah, I take so many low angle shots, I think I'm going to invest in the Canon angle viewfinder.

In the box ~ I know it looks that way, but this is an HDR image. So, I still safely have one foot out of the box

Dogdots

rwells wrote:

Yeah, I take so many low angle shots, I think I'm going to invest in the Canon angle viewfinder.

In the box ~ I know it looks that way, but this is an HDR image. So, I still safely have one foot out of the box

Its so mild I didn't even notice it. Happy to hear your one foot was out

Richard

Bravo, Randy. clap This one is damn near perfect--color, composition, exposure are all great. I suppose I'm in the minority on this forum, but I think HDR is most effective when you don't even know it was used.

rwells

Richard wrote:

Bravo, Randy. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >clap<img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/clap.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > This one is damn near perfect--color, composition, exposure are all great. I suppose I'm in the minority on this forum, but I think HDR is most effective when you don't even know it was used.

Hey Richard,

Thanks for the kind words.

As to HDR:

I feel that everyone has a right to like or dislike any photo or processing or technique.

What I don't get, is why a lot of photogs are so closed minded to it, it's just another process/tool. I view it as no different than using, say a large aperture while shooting to obtain a nice bokeh. Or using lights to help make an image appear different than what you are really seeing in person.

It makes me laugh in frustration also that no-one questions the big name landscape photogs for doing the same, although they call it "blending". Same thing, just manufacturing it a little differently.

By definition:
High dynamic range imaging
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In image processing, computer graphics, and photography, high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminances between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wider dynamic range allows HDR images to represent more accurately the wide range of intensity levels found in real scenes ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference>[1]</SUP>
The two main sources of HDR imagery are computer renderings and merging of multiple photographs, which in turn are known as low dynamic range (LDR)<SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference>[2]</SUP> or standard dynamic range (SDR)<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference>[3]</SUP> images. Tone mapping techniques, which reduce overall contrast to facilitate display of HDR images on devices with lower dynamic range, can be applied to produce images with preserved or exaggerated local contrast for artistic effect.

---

I have yet to ever witness a scene in person the way a lot of these great photogs images convey. Say, a great sunset over the ocean, but the water is nicely blurred and the foreground sand/rocks have plenty of light.

That's just not real!!! ~ But I do like it very much. ~ I can also appreciate if someone uses HDR to a "more extreme" level, to change the "real" scene to a different rendering.

Lighting is a much closer relative, and is by definition, HDR. (Lighting can, and is usually used to help expand the latitude of {areas within} a scene enough to allow sufficient and pleasing capture via your camera)

Hmmm, photogs have been using methods to expand the latitude of scene capture within one exposure for as long as there have been cameras. Sounds like a lot of current photogs are just slow to adapt/accept a newer entry/process into this field.


I'm not blastin' on you, and I mean no disrespect. It's not really even directed at you, but for all to hear ~ I just needed to get that off my chest. To share my view on it, if you will...

Richard

rwells wrote:

I'm not blastin' on you, and I mean no disrespect. It's not really even directed at you, but for all to hear ~ I just needed to get that off my chest. To share my view on it, if you will...

No offense taken. I agree that HDR is just another tool that can help photographers expand their creative potential. I only object to it when it becomes a cliché or is used indiscriminately with no real artistic purpose in mind. A banal shot does not become less banal when tone mapped. In this sense, it is no different than a thousand other techniques that modern photographers have their disposal. Oh, and for the record, I use it myself with some regularity.

black mamba

Randy,

I really like the way you've expressed your opinions and beliefs here. It was all very well said ... and your observations were dead accurate. I agree with you completely.

Ride safe,

Tom

rwells

Richard wrote:

No offense taken. I agree that HDR is just another tool that can help photographers expand their creative potential. I only object to it when it becomes a cliché or is used indiscriminately with no real artistic purpose in mind. A banal shot does not become less banal when tone mapped. In this sense, it is no different than a thousand other techniques that modern photographers have their disposal. Oh, and for the record, I use it myself with some regularity.

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject Richard

rwells

black mamba wrote:

Randy,

I really like the way you've expressed your opinions and beliefs here. It was all very well said ... and your observations were dead accurate. I agree with you completely.

Ride safe,

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for your viewpoint.

I just try and open peoples eyes that HDR encompass a lot of tools/techniques, and doesn't just mean Photomatix. As the definition shows, HDR would also include manipulated lighting. I've not heard anyone say about a nice portrait that was lit with flash, strobe, reflector, etc. "The image looks overcooked, it doesn't look real". ~ Depending on the particulars, of course it doesn't look real! If it looked real, there would be blocked shadows, blown background, mottled lighting, or any number of other issues that we use lighting to overcome or enhance.

B&W images: Don't get me started here. I like B&W, but really ~ Who sees in B&W? Does anyone comment on a B&W image, "that doesn't look real"? Or, "the sign of a good B&W is when it doesn't look like B&W was used".

I could type till my fingers bleed about all the "accepted" methods photogs use to manipulate images away from what was "real" when the image was shot, but it won't sink in.

For some unknown to me reason, a tone-mapped image that a photog perceives as not "real" usually gets a version of the "get back in the box" spiel.

I will note; This forum, Other Cool Shots, has become much more tolerant of tone-mapped HDR's. The other forums here are not nearly at this stage yet.

All of this is of course, MHO ~ YMMV



It's possible that a little HDR applied to our thinking might expand the latitude of our acceptance...




I hope I don't fall and break something when I get off this soapbox

DaddyO

Very nice one.

rwells

DaddyO wrote:

Very nice one.

Thanks Michael

lizzard_nyc

Richard wrote:

No offense taken. I agree that HDR is just another tool that can help photographers expand their creative potential. I only object to it when it becomes a cliché or is used indiscriminately with no real artistic purpose in mind. A banal shot does not become less banal when tone mapped. In this sense, it is no different than a thousand other techniques that modern photographers have their disposal. Oh, and for the record, I use it myself with some regularity.

Richard,
I feel as though you've just singaled me out---I'm learning and not too long ago I took the most banal shot ever taken (anyone remember radioflyer?) and I cooked the hell out of it, added grain, bumped the color, threw in some make believe HDR--it was overcooked and burned to ashes and still a banal shot in the end.

Great thread Randy---learning learning everyday.
Like the shot very much and the colors--but you know me, not enough HDR, , which means it's perfect.

PS--I love B&W photography:D .

rwells

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Richard,
I feel as though you've just singaled me out---I'm learning and not too long ago I took the most banal shot ever taken (anyone remember radioflyer?) and I cooked the hell out of it, added grain, bumped the color, threw in some make believe HDR--it was overcooked and burned to ashes and still a banal shot in the end.

Great thread Randy---learning learning everyday.
Like the shot very much and the colors--but you know me, not enough HDR, , which means it's perfect.

PS--I love B&W photography:D .

Hey Liz,

Thanks for taking the time to leave your input, and I love B&W too! Just pointing out that it's not "real" either. Trying to open up some viewpoints is all.

Since you brought it up: Where are you on your self-proclaimed "radio-flyer" project?

Oh no ~ we didn't forget ~ and the clock's ticking: tick, tock, tick, tock...

Richard

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Richard,
I feel as though you've just singaled me out---I'm learning and not too long ago I took the most banal shot ever taken (anyone remember radioflyer?) and I cooked the hell out of it, added grain, bumped the color, threw in some make believe HDR--it was overcooked and burned to ashes and still a banal shot in the end

I wasn't trying to single anybody out, Liz--I have plenty examples of my work own to draw on rofl . I'm reminded of Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice section of Fantasia: post-processing software is powerful magic, but it takes a little discipline to keep it from getting out of hand.

lizzard_nyc

Richard wrote:

I wasn't trying to single anybody out, Liz--I have plenty examples of my work own to draw on rofl . I'm reminded of Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer's Apprentice section of Fantasia: post-processing software is powerful magic, but it takes a little discipline to keep it from getting out of hand.

Oh I didn't mean I was offended, I didn't even mean that you were talking about me specifically--"singaled" out was the wrong word. I meant "it's as though you were speaking of me"--when I read what you wrote I thought "Radioflyer"--that's what I meant.

lizzard_nyc

rwells wrote:

Hey Liz,

Thanks for taking the time to leave your input, and I love B&W too! Just pointing out that it's not "real" either. Trying to open up some viewpoints is all.

Since you brought it up: Where are you on your self-proclaimed "radio-flyer" project?

Oh no ~ we didn't forget ~ and the clock's ticking: tick, tock, tick, tock...

Oh that? lol.
I have tried a couple of things that haven't panned out--I even thought to myself--"Randy said to put the Radioflyer in unexpected places to make it more interesting"--then I thought hmmm what place would be the most unexpected place for me to to put the radioflyer, where would it have to be for me to be the most surpised--and I thought "in bed with my husband" as a joke of course. So I tried that, he's kind of a trooper, and well it just looked weird and not funny--I kind of want to keep working with that though because I think it's hysterical, but then again I have kind of an odd sense of humor and not everyone gets me.

I am still working on it--It needs a paint job--it's dull red--it stares at me everyday as I leave the house and come home, it's on the porch and it laughs mocking me--

So no I have not forgotten---

adbsgicom

Did you try having it under the covers and him sort of snuggled up with it?

rwells

lizzard_nyc wrote:

Oh that? lol.
I have tried a couple of things that haven't panned out--I even thought to myself--"Randy said to put the Radioflyer in unexpected places to make it more interesting"--then I thought hmmm what place would be the most unexpected place for me to to put the radioflyer, where would it have to be for me to be the most surpised--and I thought "in bed with my husband" as a joke of course. So I tried that, he's kind of a trooper, and well it just looked weird and not funny--I kind of want to keep working with that though because I think it's hysterical, but then again I have kind of an odd sense of humor and not everyone gets me.

I am still working on it--It needs a paint job--it's dull red--it stares at me everyday as I leave the house and come home, it's on the porch and it laughs mocking me--

So no I have not forgotten---

See,

I LOVE hearing how creative and different we all are


My thinking was evidently more conservative

I had envisioned the flyer in an open field, lit in a way that definitely made it the center of attention. Making me think "why would that flyer be way out here in this field?"

Or, in an old dirty ally, positioned and lit in a way as to portray it as being a "has been", old and discarded. No one to love it anymore...


I must say: I definitely WANT to see the new pics of the flyer and hubby

rwells

adbsgicom wrote:

Did you try having it under the covers and him sort of snuggled up with it?

BTW Liz,

Since this is a family oriented public forum, make sure he keeps BOTH HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL

lizzard_nyc

adbsgicom wrote:

Did you try having it under the covers and him sort of snuggled up with it?

That's exactly what I did--but the lighting was all wrong--so I will rework that--and post it in GF .

lizzard_nyc

rwells wrote:

BTW Liz,

Since this is a family oriented public forum, make sure he keeps BOTH HANDS ON THE STEERING WHEEL

This thread is now officially cracking me up.