|
Man it's going to take forever to process all those HDRs. 
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
tuyop posted:Man it's going to take forever to process all those HDRs. Ya gotta automate that. That's the strength of the HDR, they all end up looking alike anyway, so there's no need to individualize the process. Select pictures, push button, sheild eyes, save result. I plan to charge him $1.50 per HDR, since it will be three shots combined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 19:10
|
|
|
REDACTED in favor of fun Dorkroom discussion! 
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Oh, and whoever said that woot fatigue does good HDR... man... there really should be a different term for what woot does that separates it from the average shithead who takes three pictures and presses the HDR button in some program. I only used HDR for a lack of better word. v  v
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 19:47
|
|
|
I got a reply.Max posted:
I'd be great for the project!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
The tax rate for mileage is .55/mile so I hope all those locations are within walking distance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I got a reply. Well, we always say, "Don't give away your photos." And, you wouldn't be. This is a great start for a photographer, and you'll get good exposure, and you'll get better paying jobs in the future, and you should be happy that people will see your work, and did I mention that you'll get better jobs in the future and this is good exposure?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:02
|
|
|
Do not do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
I'm being a smartass - no way in hell would I do this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I'm being a smartass - no way in hell would I do this. You should almost pay them for all the great exposure this will give you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You should almost pay them for all the great exposure this will give you. I think I may email him and tell him exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:I think I may email him and tell him exactly that. If you shoot film, you pretty much would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
Are you kidding? It's 50 cents per picture and they accept ONE picture of each place? So assuming that all the venues are on one strip and you can just go door to door, and it takes you about 5 minutes to set up and get a good photo of each one and move on to the next, you are making...6 dollars an hour. This has got to be targeted at the housewife or execudork with "a nice camera" (bridge superzoom) who wants to pretend to be a photographer when they're out running errands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Are you kidding? It's 50 cents per picture and they accept ONE picture of each place? Or someone who will use this as "I'm a professional photographer for X website....I'll need to get in front of this line!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Sounds like they want someone who's going clubbing anyway to take the shots. I know an art student who takes her SLR everywhere and could probably do most of the clubs in London in 2 months without going out of her way. Still really not worth the effort though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Oh, and whoever said that woot fatigue does good HDR... man... there really should be a different term for what woot does that separates it from the average shithead who takes three pictures and presses the HDR button in some program. Whitezombi posted:I think poo poo works best. I think it's hilarious how a strong majority of people who bitch about HDR photos don't even know the correct terminology for things and in turn look like fools. I try and post corrections every once in a while... this is literally the ONLY part of photography that turns me into a cranky old man when people get it wrong. HDR = High Dynamic Range Forget the part where it says High, lets just focus on "Dynamic Range." To learn about dynamic range, check out this site for a readup, and check out this site to see picture examples. Dynamic range is a good thing. Take a look at Ansel Adams' landscapes. Pretty much all of them have a high dynamic range and as a result pretty much all of them look awesome. Ansel Adams didn't use photoshop and photomatix to achieve these results, he just shot medium/large format which allow a much higher dynamic range than smaller film formats. (He also was great in the No no, nobody hates HDR. People hate tone mapping. Simple Definition of Tone Mapping posted:Tone mapping is a technique used in image processing and computer graphics to map one set of colours to another, often to approximate the appearance of high dynamic range images in a medium that has a more limited dynamic range. Since this is a photography forum that doesn't put up with much stupidity, I don't understand why people allow this pretty significant misunderstanding to keep being spread around without trying to instead educate people. RangerScum fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Apr 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think it's hilarious how a strong majority of people who bitch about HDR photos don't even know the correct terminology for things and in turn look like fools. I try and post corrections every once in a while... this is literally the ONLY part of photography that turns me into a cranky old man when people get it wrong. Yes - I am a fool. Whatever the gently caress you want to call it. I still think the photos everyone posts and calls HDR look like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I think it's hilarious how a strong majority of people who bitch about HDR photos don't even know the correct terminology for things and in turn look like fools. I try and post corrections every once in a while... this is literally the ONLY part of photography that turns me into a cranky old man when people get it wrong. Because when people, to whom we're reacting, talk about HDR, they are talking about the tone-mapped nightmares of which you speak. Sure, we could first correct them and THEN ridicule them, but it's just easier to cut-out step one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Well... gently caress me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:Yes - I am a fool. Whatever the gently caress you want to call it. I still think the photos everyone posts and calls HDR look like poo poo. I'm just saying you of all people might want to call it the right thing since a lot of your B&W landscapes are HDR. You remind me of the blind black KKK leader from the Chapelle Show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I'm just saying you of all people might want to call it the right thing since a lot of your B&W landscapes are HDR. You remind me of the blind black KKK leader from the Chapelle Show. Everyone but you knows what we're talking about when we talk about 'HDR' because if you have to call it out as a recognizable technique, then it looks like poo poo. It's stupid bordering on asinine to demand that every image where something has been done to increase the dynamic range beyond what can fit in the print/display medium/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:56
|
|
|
Tone mapping is a method of creating high dynamic range images, hating "HDR" is short-hand for hating poorly-crafted HDR images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
HDR doesn't mean anything anyway because it's a relative term. My digital SLR has a higher dynamic range than my aunt's ancient Sony Mavica, and my eyes have a higher dynamic range than my SLR's sensor. And as long as we're sperging about terminology, tone-mapping doesn't automatically result in the "HDR" abominations that are all over flickr, and in fact it doesn't have to have anything to do with dynamic range at all. Nearly all NASA images are tone-mapped (mapping ultraviolet or x-ray or whatever into different tones of visible colours) and no one screams OMG BAD HDR on those. So the reason we use HDR is because it doesn't really mean anything specific, and because it's been seized to refer to a specific style of tone-mapping and dynamic range compression. Everyone knows that "HDR" now means "lovely oversaturated oversharpnened low-contrast image".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 21:59
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Tone mapping is a method of creating high dynamic range images, hating "HDR" is short-hand for hating poorly-crafted HDR images. I'm just saying that one result of people never using the correct terms is that you confuse people that are new to photography and teach them to hate something that they shouldn't. Yes HDR can be relative when comparing large format film to digital. However, when discussing photographs the relation of dynamic range of our eyeballs to our sensors/film isn't ever relevant. Tone mapping can look amazing as well, as seen in some of the Nasa photos that you have mentioned. I never said I hated tone mapping, I just said that is what people who don't like "hdr" photos dislike. I can't make anyone say anything different, I was just making sure people knew the difference (not everyone does) and was stating that I thought it odd that the same poeple who get anal over the smallest little things on these forums can't be assed to use/learn the right terminology for something they frequently state their distaste for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I'm just saying you of all people might want to call it the right thing since a lot of your B&W landscapes are HDR. You remind me of the blind black KKK leader from the Chapelle Show. It's pretty simple guys. I am calling the lovely photos that people call HDR exactly what they are - poo poo. I think there is a pretty big difference between those photos and my landscapes. I also think that I have a pretty good idea of what dynamic range is based on those photos. Yes - me thinking lovely HDR photos are poo poo is exactly like a black man being the leader of the KKK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:It's pretty simple guys. I am calling the lovely photos that people call HDR exactly what they are - poo poo. I think there is a pretty big difference between those photos and my landscapes. I also think that I have a pretty good idea of what dynamic range is based on those photos. Hey guys it was a joke about a funny skit that was kinda similar to the situation guys but alright. Yes there is a big difference between lovely tone-mapped images and some of your landscapes. I guess it puzzles me why nobody wants to call it the right thing and then get downright hostile about it when it's brought up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
It seems to me that the issue is not HDR vs. tone mapping, but rather good vs. lovely application of each.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Yes there is a big difference between lovely tone-mapped images and some of your landscapes. I guess it puzzles me why nobody wants to call it the right thing and then get downright hostile about it when it's brought up. Well, I for one appreciate you explaining the difference, as I was equating HDR with lovely tonemapping and not really thinking twice about it. Will I start saying "lovely tonemapping" instead of "HDR"? Maybe, but HDR is already villainous enough such that it might be impossible to save it from its misunderstood fate. Also, people are coming off as hostile b/c you were rather  in your explanation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Hey guys it was a joke about a funny skit that was kinda similar to the situation guys but alright. It is a funny skit. William T. Hornaday posted:It seems to me that the issue is not HDR vs. tone mapping, but rather good vs. lovely application of each. Bingo. Do a google image search for HDR and you will see what I mean. Seems to be a lot of confused people out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2010 23:28
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:It seems to me that the issue is not HDR vs. tone mapping, but rather good vs. lovely application of each.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 01:40
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Dunno about that- I have not seen any posts at all here advocating the use of tone mapping. RangerScum posted:Tone mapping can look amazing as well, as seen in some of the Nasa photos that you have mentioned. I never said I hated tone mapping, I just said that is what people who don't like "hdr" photos dislike.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:the blind black KKK leader from the Chapelle Show.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Whatever happened to Clayton Bigsby anyway? Last I heard he divorced his wife.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Dunno about that- I have not seen any posts at all here advocating the use of tone mapping. For scenes requiring a high dynamic range the Dorkroom consensus seems to be exposure layering. I like some tone-mapped shots. Tone-mapped HDR seems to have gotten a little like pitch correction in music. It's an interesting effect that provides some cool results, but overuse provokes a negative reaction. It's like Oh God The Horror  vs Not So Bad 
a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 08:26 on May 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
HDR is so cool, I'm going to do it FIVE TIMES!   Unprocessed original / End result. Fun fact: The sliders didn't do anything after the 5th HDR toning I guess I'm lucky to never have found HDR attractive.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 09:02
|
|
|
Kazy posted:HDR is so cool, I'm going to do it FIVE TIMES! It's interesting how the last step turns it entirely into a 3-bit image..the only colors in there are primary red/green/blue/cyan/magenta/yellow. Exposes a bit of their algorithm I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 10:34
|
|
|
Okay yeah, I'll kick in a couple bucks for a "GBS stay out of The Dorkroom" banner.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
This song plays on repeat when I do any post work on my HDR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVUHWCynig
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
You guys are ready for this, I assume http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/readers-11/ quote:Attention: everyone with a camera, amateur or pro. Please join us on Sunday, May 2, at 15:00 (U.T.C./G.M.T.), as thousands of photographers simultaneously record “A Moment in Time.” The idea is to create an international mosaic, an astonishingly varied gallery of images that are cemented together by the common element of time.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Four Banger posted:This song plays on repeat when I do any post work on my HDR.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2010 10:21
|
|
