fcallington
Well-known member
Nice troll. Well played.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
- Thread starter Mikhail Tal
- Start date
NetMage
Veteran Member
If anyone misunderstands the purpose of HDR, it is you. And talking about the "purpose" of HDR indicates a fundamental lack of understanding in general.
Tony Sx
Senior Member
Neither image appeals but yours is definitely rubbish. Stick to chess.
gollywop
Veteran Member
--
gollywop
gollywop
Brev00
Forum Pro
Your point is well taken. While your version may not stand by itself as a great shot, it does illustrate the weaknesses of the original which, I believe, is your main point. On the other hand, the negative tone of your post undercuts your position. I mean, who really cares if some fraud gets ahead? I am not going to keep track of all the losers who win, that is for sure.
Dedcakes
Well-known member
What you've quoted are truths.
"Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier."
"To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour."
Also, your image is over-processed and inferior. Good job turning a grey, poor weather, day into one that's bright and sunny. DPR should really consider doing a piece on your fabulous work.
"Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier."
"To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour."
Also, your image is over-processed and inferior. Good job turning a grey, poor weather, day into one that's bright and sunny. DPR should really consider doing a piece on your fabulous work.
Joseph T Lewis III
Veteran Member
Don't be too harsh on the OP; perhaps he was only trying to get the photo to match the black velvet Elvis paintings he has hanging in his living room...
Elvin S Pipperman
New member
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the main problem with this picture is that the subject (the ruin) inherently has less visual impact than its surroundings, primarily due to its relative lack of color. I decided to "take the challenge" to see if I could start from that perspective and alter the photo to give the subject more relative presence. Working only in Apple Aperture I completely desaturated it so I could concentrate on tone, did a bunch of adjustments, then put a little saturation back in, but much less than the original. What do you think of this approach?
Attempt to increase subject interest.
Attempt to increase subject interest.
tjdean01
Senior Member
I doubt his image looks better than it would to the naked eye. Not in that situation anyway.
The HDR on both of them looks bad. Just give the regular photo with the sky over exposed. That's what I'd like to see.
The HDR on both of them looks bad. Just give the regular photo with the sky over exposed. That's what I'd like to see.
TheEye
Veteran Member
...or worse. ;-)
papillon_65
Forum Pro
Karl Gnter Wnsch
Forum Pro
Both are examples why certain people should stay clear of photography. They both look truly horrible! But your example of over the top editing takes the biscuit for being worse still. Which proves, even from a very bad start you can do worse...
N
Najinsky
Guest
I can't resist having a play with sick images. I've tried to dial back some of the tone map damage and then express the mood I think may have been present in the original (which is obviously just a guess).
Here's what I settled on:
-Najinsky
Here's what I settled on:
-Najinsky
Mikhail Tal wrote:
DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:
Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.
Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.
To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:
What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.
So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.
N
Najinsky
Guest
And here's a second version with some brushed adjustments to 'fix' the unnaturally dark chimney stack:
BOTH images are Krieger's. Swiping someone's image and spending two minutes applying a cartoonish, over-saturated HDR actions to it, doesn't mean it's all of the sudden YOURS.
Second, his image is for an article on "Poor Weather Photography", not "Bright Sunny Day Photography". It's about context. If he wanted to make a grey day looking like a bright sunny beach day he could have done that.
Whether you think it's underexposed or not, interesting compositionally or not, doesn't give you the right to create a poll critical of the guy's photography.
When you have examples of own work, images in YOUR gallery, you will then have every right to post them, ask for C&C, discuss various edits, etc.
If DPR has an article in the future featuring some of your images, you'd be furious if someone started a Poll about how poor they are. Frankly you sound a bit jealous that DPR selected someone else's work for an article. If you are so convinced that you could do better work, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
Second, his image is for an article on "Poor Weather Photography", not "Bright Sunny Day Photography". It's about context. If he wanted to make a grey day looking like a bright sunny beach day he could have done that.
Whether you think it's underexposed or not, interesting compositionally or not, doesn't give you the right to create a poll critical of the guy's photography.
When you have examples of own work, images in YOUR gallery, you will then have every right to post them, ask for C&C, discuss various edits, etc.
If DPR has an article in the future featuring some of your images, you'd be furious if someone started a Poll about how poor they are. Frankly you sound a bit jealous that DPR selected someone else's work for an article. If you are so convinced that you could do better work, go for it. Nobody is stopping you.
Dedcakes
Well-known member
Okay, yours is better than the OP's awful attempt.
Neurad1
Senior Member
Bravo.
Neurad1
Senior Member
I was wondering if Tedolf had returned as a reincarnated chess master (see OPs moniker) to troll us again.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum