Finally, and HDR image that doesn't look like a freak show

On 2009-11-08 01:23:06 -0800, RichA said:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11577

That is a pretty good pano and an outstanding image, however as far as
HDR goes I would suspect this is a pseudo HDR with Photomatix
processing applied to the finished pano after stitching, rather than a
multi exposure HDR. Look at the figures in the foreground, which are
all in obvious motion there are no ghosting artifacts.

As he states he made a handheld pano, and he would have had to repeat
that exact shot a minimum of 3 times at the adjusted exposures for a
true HDR.

I think that is why you find the final result less over the top and
less offensive to you.

All in all good work.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:40:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-11-08 01:23:06 -0800, RichA said:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11577

That is a pretty good pano and an outstanding image, however as far as
HDR goes I would suspect this is a pseudo HDR with Photomatix
processing applied to the finished pano after stitching, rather than a
multi exposure HDR. Look at the figures in the foreground, which are
all in obvious motion there are no ghosting artifacts.


So speaks the inexperienced troll that can't even create his own decent
panos from tripod-mounted frames. When are you going to get it through your
head that you can't speak with any authority on any subject unless you
yourself have, if not mastered, at least produced something presentable to
the public that won't make everyone either laugh or hurl.

HDR tools do their work by masking out tonal ranges from one of each EV
bracket-set. This would normally and automatically include only one human
image from each set of bracketed shots. HDR tools also have options to
intentionally take special care to prevent ghosting should the normal HDR
workflow not do it on its own. Do you not even understand how HDR is
accomplished? Nor how to properly use most any pano and HDR tools? (Of
course you don't, you've clearly proved that in the past. As you are now
proving it again, in your words this time instead of your laughable
examples.)

I suggest you also look into some of the more popular pano stitching tools.
Smartblend comes to mind. PTGui which includes an HDR pano-stitching
capability built right in, while also using the Smartblend plugin. Expand
your education beyond the end of your nose and the news-groups that you
troll while learning lame advice from your fellow uneducated and
inexperienced pretend-photographer idiots.

As he states he made a handheld pano, and he would have had to repeat
that exact shot a minimum of 3 times at the adjusted exposures for a
true HDR.

I guess you've never played with any cameras that do bracketing in
high-speed burst mode. Even a Canon P&S camera will do a +/- 4EV bracket
set in about one second.


I think that is why you find the final result less over the top and
less offensive to you.

All in all good work.

No it's not. Not in the least. It's right up there with some of the worst
HDR images I've had the displeasure to view.

HDR is not at all required for a scene like that. It only makes this vista
look like a muddy mess. As if taken on a deeply overcast day or under dense
and looming storm clouds, underexposed to boot. Not to mention that he's
another idiot (like yourself) making pink and magenta granite when using
his white-balance tools in editing. This pano looks like it's been sitting
in a corner, covered with dark soot and in dire need of a cleaning. Using
HDR for that type of lighting robbed it of any natural appearance
whatsoever.

But then how would most any of you know that this is not what any of it
should look like? When nearly all of you have never experienced the real
natural world to begin with, to have a valid point of reference. This is
the same reason that authors cannot write well about (REpresent) any
subject that they themselves have not lived in full or in part. Their wild
and silly imaginings and skewed perceptions of reality will be instantly
seen that way by anyone who might have already "been there, did that". Then
throwing their book in the trash with a quick comment of "what utter
tripe". The same as I do with most all of your trolls' imagined and
invented photography advice. Or as I would with this person's HDR pano
disaster. Knowing full well how much of his time and money he wasted in
doing so.

It never ceases to amaze me what you people think is good photography or
good editing techniques.

I guess even a minute speck of water is highly applauded by someone near to
their last minutes' dying of thirst.

Trolling Is An Endless Task wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:40:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-11-08 01:23:06 -0800, RichA said:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11577

That is a pretty good pano and an outstanding image, however as far as
HDR goes I would suspect this is a pseudo HDR with Photomatix
processing applied to the finished pano after stitching, rather than a
multi exposure HDR. Look at the figures in the foreground, which are
all in obvious motion there are no ghosting artifacts.

So speaks the inexperienced troll

Then stop speaking, troll.

--
Ray Fischer

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-11-08 01:23:06 -0800, RichA said:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11577

That is a pretty good pano and an outstanding image, however as far as
HDR goes I would suspect this is a pseudo HDR

Yep, he added that description this morning. It's an amazing shot but
rather flat. Throw it in photoshop & do auto levels and it looks great.
That takes out the red tinge and restores some true whites.


with Photomatix processing
applied to the finished pano after stitching, rather than a multi
exposure HDR. Look at the figures in the foreground, which are all in
obvious motion there are no ghosting artifacts.

As he states he made a handheld pano, and he would have had to repeat
that exact shot a minimum of 3 times at the adjusted exposures for a
true HDR.

I think that is why you find the final result less over the top and less
offensive to you.

All in all good work.



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 2009-11-09 08:49:26 -0800, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-11-08 01:23:06 -0800, RichA said:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11577

That is a pretty good pano and an outstanding image, however as far as
HDR goes I would suspect this is a pseudo HDR

Yep, he added that description this morning. It's an amazing shot but
rather flat. Throw it in photoshop & do auto levels and it looks great.
That takes out the red tinge and restores some true whites.

Yes a few tweeks would put the final polish on it.


with Photomatix processing applied to the finished pano after
stitching, rather than a multi exposure HDR. Look at the figures in the
foreground, which are all in obvious motion there are no ghosting
artifacts.

As he states he made a handheld pano, and he would have had to repeat
that exact shot a minimum of 3 times at the adjusted exposures for a
true HDR.

I think that is why you find the final result less over the top and
less offensive to you.

All in all good work.

I see I was wrong regarding the way he went about the pseudo HDR. He
made the exposure adjustments (+1, 0, -1) in Lightroom and then used
photomatix before stitching, rather than my suggestion of single file
Photomatix processing after stitching.

Whatever works.
--
Regards,

Savageduck