Automotive Photography Competition #212

[Rockefella]

I'm interested to see what you can come up with, here you go:

Bored.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Mate, I apologise to you, for causing so much drama. I'll keep my thoughts to myself in future. Still love your work.

No please don't, your comments are always welcome. Just remember to bring a valid point to the argument

Don't take this upon yourself, I caused the "shitstorm" not you.

IMO the HDR works well in niko's entry. Yes, the effect itself was introduced to correctly expose photographs that in raw format were under or over exposed but the nature of HDR itself is an effect to deliberately perform these days. I use it myself alot for effect and with niko's it is no different. His entry does work well. Because the emphasis on the contrast of the clouds and the reflection on the bodwork is what HDR brings out in a photo like this. It is afterall a combination of 3 or more levels of exposure that create the effect with tone mapping. It works well in the way that it creates the dark moody weather effect whilst bringing out the shine and colour of the car. It is deliberate and the shot in my opinion does gain from HDR.

I don't believe it does work well, see attachment. The nature of HDR is to make a photo perfectly exposed. Whereas your trying to tell people that the nature of HDR is this effect used in Niko's image? This effect your talking about is overuse of natural HDR, while I'll agree that it works in certain circumstances (with its own limits of course), it does not here.

Please don't. I know your comment kicked up a bit of a shitstorm, but the purpose of these threads is to get better and get advice, even if you don't participate actively(me). I personally think that HDR panders to a certain taste, so some like it and some don't. I do not really like it, but it is legal and I'm in no way angered by Niko's use of it.

I absolutely agree, overuse of HDR attains to a certain persons tastes but there's always a line. I also am in no way angered by the use of it, but I would only seriously consider abusing HDR if it was going to turn into a half decent photo.

You have to admit that there's been worse photos than mine in these comps... Why all the fuzz about my photo? He likes it, what's the big deal?

I'm interested to see what you can come up with, here you go:

Ok, I've had my way with it for a little bit.

[Sledgehammer]

Thanks niko for the unedited shot's. I got to try my first hdr, no idea if its any good though, btw, I really like your work with the sky and the reflections on the hood.

[henk4]

. When I asked to have HDRs banned from the photo comp (or any post processing for that matter) nobody said anything,

Did you ask me? Because I would have been greatly in favour of such a ban. (havn't there not been polls on the subject?) My discussions with Pat Ernzen need not to be repeated here, but IMHO Niko's shot is not something I would fancy, let alone submit for a competition. To my taste it is far too artificial.

[Cotterik]

See now both of your attempts to re-HDR or improve niko's photo have actually lessened the effect when compared to his own. Whereas niko's HDR looks deliberately overcast yet not underexposed, yours mustang looks accidentally underexposed and badly cropped. Sledge's isnt as bad but is greyed out on certain areas and in others over contrasted. I think mustang you're opposing the fact that HDR can be used in instances like this. To be quite honest I think if niko's photo was plainly taken it would lack the immediate impact. The weather at the scene appears to not favour a naturally well exposed photograph. But with some artificial tone mapping it turns out quite well in areas. Its not a very strong HDR. But it improves the photo from what it could originally provide.

HDR tends to favour reflections, cloudy skies and bright colours. Niko's has the makings of a good HDR scene but the exposures as I already mentioned dont provide much to work with. And yes, Henk HDR is artificial. Thats the whole point. Photomatix and tone mapping was and is there to adjust exposure of photographs that werent correctly taken but it provides a chance to give for some really unique photos. If niko's shot had more colour and detail in the sky, and was possibly zoomed out more with better reflection on the right hand side of the car you could easily come out with a HDR such as this one:

[Niko_Fx]

I like Sledge's the best out of the three. Rock's is too white in the back and the contrast seemed to be increased too much... Mustang's is pretty dark and is almost as if parts of the car disappeared, I don't like the cropping either.

Sledge looks good and more natural, but the artificial taste that mine has is what attracts a lot of people...

This is just my opinion of course, and seeing how everybody edits the photo differently and adjusts it accordingly to their taste, reminds me that we are all different, we all think differently, and we all have different tastes... Like Niko said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Rockefella]

I don't know how to HDR. I thought I could get around it by making three layers with the mid-exposure set at 100% (base-layer) and the other 2 overlayed with 50% opacity. It didn't work out too well so I just played with one of the shots until I thought it looked interesting I guess.

Niko I think in your original the sky was too burned out, or at least the clouds were. I liked everything else.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

See now both of your attempts to re-HDR or improve niko's photo have actually lessened the effect when compared to his own. Whereas niko's HDR looks deliberately overcast yet not underexposed, yours mustang looks accidentally underexposed and badly cropped. Sledge's isnt as bad but is greyed out on certain areas and in others over contrasted. I think mustang you're opposing the fact that HDR can be used in instances like this. To be quite honest I think if niko's photo was plainly taken it would lack the immediate impact. The weather at the scene appears to not favour a naturally well exposed photograph. But with some artificial tone mapping it turns out quite well in areas. Its not a very strong HDR. But it improves the photo from what it could originally provide.

HDR tends to favour reflections, cloudy skies and bright colours. Niko's has the makings of a good HDR scene but the exposures as I already mentioned dont provide much to work with. And yes, Henk HDR is artificial. Thats the whole point. Photomatix and tone mapping was and is there to adjust exposure of photographs that werent correctly taken but it provides a chance to give for some really unique photos. If niko's shot had more colour and detail in the sky, and was possibly zoomed out more with better reflection on the right hand side of the car you could easily come out with a HDR such as this one:

Yeah, my cropping was bad, the whole thing took less than 5minutes. Though the framing of the original isn't what would be called good. Forgot to reorganize layers, thats the only reason its under.

I'm not debating whether HDR can be used in instances like this, I'm debating that it shouldn't be abused in instances like this.. What immediate impact would it lack? The stupidly overclocked HDR "Technique"? Because that's a effect that's not wanted anyway. It doesn't need to be overdone to look good. And thats where your image comes in, its not overdone, nor does it look as if all the dials have been turned up to full power when in PS or PM. The effect has been used to its full potential rather than just plain abused.

I like Sledge's the best out of the three. Rock's is too white in the back and the contrast seemed to be increased too much... Mustang's is pretty dark and is almost as if parts of the car disappeared, I don't like the cropping either.

Sledge looks good and more natural, but the artificial taste that mine has is what attracts a lot of people...

This is just my opinion of course, and seeing how everybody edits the photo differently and adjusts it accordingly to their taste, reminds me that we are all different, we all think differently, and we all have different tastes... Like Niko said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

The artificial part is the what puts the image way below any other in terms of standards. The photo isn't hilariously bad but the HDR usage is laughable, there is a line where the HDR effect suddenly becomes too much.

Attached is reasonable HDR attempt.

[Niko_Fx]

Niko I think in your original the sky was too burned out, or at least the clouds were. I liked everything else.

My dad can beat your dad.

Attached is reasonable HDR attempt.

That did come out pretty good

The artificial part is the what puts the image way below any other in terms of standards. The photo isn't hilariously bad but the HDR usage is laughable, there is a line where the HDR effect suddenly becomes too much.

Are you serious now? I guess I should be glad that it's not "hilariously bad..." Aren't you taking this a bit too far? Remind me to criticize the living hell out of your future submissions

These HDRs right here can perfectly define overdone.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Are you serious now? I guess I should be glad that it's not "hilariously bad..." Aren't you taking this a bit too far? Remind me to criticize the living hell out of your future submissions

These HDRs right here can perfectly define overdone.

Lol I was trying to get you to submit. I was kind of slightly serious, if that works

Don't worry I'll try to remember to tell you, I probably deserve it anyway.

mhmm, yours doesn't touch those They're kind of retro, But now yours seems halfarse, you should turn it up a notch. See how it comes out.

Edit: Someone wanna create the voting threads?

[henk4]

The more efforts I see here of people trying to use HDR, the more I am convinced that it should be banned from the photo competition. As someone said it can be used to make a bad shot interesting (or similar words). A bad shot IMHO is a bad shot, shooting photos is to use the camera options (shutterspeed, ISO, DoF, filters etc) in the framework of the composition within available light (and yes that includes a flash and the use of a tripod). But these computer animations are too far away from photography. These sort of images are "shouting" (I am tempted to use the word vulgar, but that has also another connotation) and lacking inherent quality. And yes, Niko I have noticed that people here like such images, which, again, makes me wonder why I should bother to participate. (PS can anybody tell me what HDR stands for? High Definition Rubbish))

[superwaxer]

I think HDR should be banned as well. HDR doesnt show off your skill as a photographer, it shows of your skills on reading HDR tutorials and applying it to your own pictures. The idea of HDR is to add dynamic range to a photograph. Im very sorry to say this, but it is rarely achieved successfully without screing it up. There is a fine line between "real" and "cartoonish" when it comes to HDR.

Maybe we can start an HDR photo comp?

[nikowgcf]

Please don't. I know your comment kicked up a bit of a shitstorm, but the purpose of these threads is to get better and get advice,

Thanks, F6hellcat ..I have to admit I had never heard of HDR before. So I have learnt heaps from my original 3 words "love your work". I will go down the HDR path and play around with it. I still think it is a great enhancement device I only use photoshop to downsize the photos I submit but if others want to use enhancing assists and it's legal for the comp, so be it I'm happy with that.

[johnnynumfiv]

UCP is on the left, Henk is the right.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I thought Wouter was thinner...