HDR Pano, Take 2

For anyone else looking , the HDR is under the RAW forum

Got a link? Couldn't find it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdis​play.php?f=18
It's not just for HDR . Just post a question and someone will probably answer .

Deckham wrote in post #6449061
I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

Its no different then B&W, thats not even close to what our eyes see, but some people really prefer B&W over even good colored shots!

Its art, how can you possibly ask, "what exactly looks appealing"? Thats like asking someone why he likes the look of his wife, or what flavor of ice cream they like, chill, its just a different way of looking at a picture and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking it...

and I know you weren't saying there is something wrong with it, but to suggest someone is "wrong" for liking what they like is kinda bigoted or photo snobbish...

Kronie wrote in post #6449328
Actually it looked just like this in real life. I did very little processing.

So you're saying that the clouds looked surreal and the trees all had halos around them? I'm a big fan of HDR images, but only when it's used to bring back some of the dynamic range lost from cameras' limitations. I'm sorry, but you can't tell me seriously that that is close to what you saw. Unless they're magic trees

A little like a pano, or using a fisheye, or tele. Not at all what our eyes see. I think it's the end result that matters.

superdiver wrote in post #7186480
Its no different then B&W, thats not even close to what our eyes see, but some people really prefer B&W over even good colored shots!

Its art, how can you possibly ask, "what exactly looks appealing"? Thats like asking someone why he likes the look of his wife, or what flavor of ice cream they like, chill, its just a different way of looking at a picture and there is absolutely nothing wrong with liking it...

and I know you weren't saying there is something wrong with it, but to suggest someone is "wrong" for liking what they like is kinda bigoted or photo snobbish...

First, let me reiterate - I am not suggesting, nor have I suggested, that something has to look a certain way to be pleasing. Although you make a weak attempt to point this out, your post still implies that I have been 'snobbish' or 'bigoted'. So I wanted to clear that up...

Now, my question - and it is a genuine question, is 'what do people find attractive in this image'? I ask this, because I cannot see it as those that praise it do. I do not find anything appealing, attractive, interesting, inspiring, exciting, moving - or in fact, anything other than a distorted view of a landscape. The novelty of manipulating exposures digitally wore off on me about 3 years ago.

Is this 'art'? Anything is 'art'.
Do I like it, or think it has any value? No.
Do others like it, or feel it has value? Yes.

Therefore - I wish to understand why others find it appealing. Think of it as a learning exersise for me. I have not seen any explanation, or any kind of detailed response with regards to praise on the image.

your right, what were we thinking for having an opinion on something without being able to explain it to someone who doesn't like it!

sorry your photo-honorness...

superdiver wrote in post #7308796
your right, what were we thinking for having an opinion on something without being able to explain it to someone who doesn't like it!

sorry your photo-honorness...

Wow.
I'll try again. Would someone, who likes the image, do me a favour and tell me what it is they like about it please.

Deckham wrote in post #7308998
Wow.
I'll try again. Would someone, who likes the image, do me a favour and tell me what it is they like about it please.

I think many have mentioned this in the thread before and here it goes again...its in the taste, some like it and some do not..
some go overboard with the tonemapping, and its his/her view on how they want to see there image..

do we have definition or rule on how a photograph should be processed and to what extent it can be processed? NOPS..

I dont think anyone will explain what they like in this image...they just like it...and so do I...whereas there can be thousand of reasons for a person to dislike it...

there is a nature and landscape section in the forum, lets go there bro...why waste time on something that does not generate any interest?

For my view on the image...its ROCKING...thanks for sharing..

Avi

I guess I'm stuck with never understanding it then
Thanks for the effort.

I'm not sure why someone would go into the HDR sub-forum and criticize someone's HDR shot, but...

I like the image for its surrealness and moodiness, and I like the 3D-esque depth HDR produces. Is it photorealistic? No. But neither are fisheye, macro, or B&W shots. I mean, you either like the look of overdone HDRs or not.

However, what I DON'T like about this photo is the horizon. It needs to be rotated 1-2 degrees clockwise. Otherwise, I really like the mood and colors.

JTwin wrote in post #7331946
I'm not sure why someone would go into the HDR sub-forum and criticize someone's HDR shot, but...

I like the image for its surrealness and moodiness, and I like the 3D-esque depth HDR produces. Is it photorealistic? No. But neither are fisheye, macro, or B&W shots. I mean, you either like the look of overdone HDRs or not.

However, what I DON'T like about this photo is the horizon. It needs to be rotated 1-2 degrees clockwise. Otherwise, I really like the mood and colors.

Thanks - that's what I wanted to hear

Deckham wrote in post #6449317
...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

I'm going to disagree with you here. I personally USUALLY dislike this kind of "overdone" processing, but that's largely up to personal taste. It's utilized well in some cases and not well in other cases. And yeah, for certain situations, photographs that look sort of "cartoony" can actually work.

But even though I usually tend to dislike that look, I feel like it's sort of pretentious to say that it's "not photography". If it's not photography, then what is it?

HDR is just a tool. That's it. It's just a software tool that allows people to do more with their photography, and that's all it is. If people misapply it or use it asa gimmick to hide their weaknesses, that doesn't discredit HDR photography any more than crappy-ass photographers discredit photography in general.

Now, I'm not saying that this picture is crappy. Personally I don't like it, but most of why I dislike it is just due to personal taste. It feels unnatural to me when the subject seems to be begging for something that DOES look natural. But I'm not the artist. Presumably the photographer had reasons for making it look that why. I can state that I don't like it, state why I don't like it, and the photographer is free to disagree with me.


But that in no way makes this less of a photographic tool. Is black and white imaging true photography if it doesn't look anything like the scene that we visualized? Is digital imaging real photography? Is the digital photographer who makes the most out of Photoshop less of a photographer than someone who doesn't do any processing of their out-of-camera pictures?

Lizard Frenzy wrote in post #7341296
I'm going to disagree with you here. I personally USUALLY dislike this kind of "overdone" processing, but that's largely up to personal taste. It's utilized well in some cases and not well in other cases. And yeah, for certain situations, photographs that look sort of "cartoony" can actually work.

I differ from you and think that there is no well or overdone or not well - because it is art...

It may sound pretentious, but only if you approach what I say as a photographer, not as an artist. The process uses photography as a base, and takes it further from there, to produce an artwork. As such, it is not exactly 'photography' as a discipline, much as 'photographic drawings' are not. This is not a comment on the value of the work as an art piece, but a delineation of disciplines.

Actually, HDR is an anagram for High Dynamic Range, and is not a tool at all. It has become to mean a treatment to a series of varying exposures to 'compress' the dynamic range into the visible spectrum. I disagree with your later argument also. I consider as you say 'crappy photography', 'photography', and heavily software manipulated photos as 'art' of a different type.

I agree. I can't definitively say that any work is 'wrong' or 'bad', but only that I do not like it. The reason some may be upset at my approach, is because I genuinely am interested in knowing what exactly they find interesting or pleasing in the image. It is so far away from what I personally like, that it confuses me a little. I am an art-appreciator of sorts, and I do not like not knowing or understanding these things.

It is not a 'tool'. It is a process.
Black & White photography is the capture of light - much like any other kind of photography of any genre. The difference here, is that this and other artworks like it have moved on from the photograph and gone somewhere else.

The question of how far one can take a photo before it crosses some virtual line is arguable, and each will have their own opinion. For me, it is when the image no longer looks like the subject/scene shot - and that (flame away) includes plastic-skinned so-called glamour 'photography.