Where does the site stand on digital manipulation now?

[jnohallman]

Just saw this one and read the caption, and it made me wonder. I know there have been many discussions about this in this forum before. I guess HDR is now OK?

PhotoID: 287480 Photograph © Nick Suydam

Jon

[stevenmwelch]

Nevermind the HDR, but, WOW, look at all that noise...

[Walter S]

Looks unlevel to me also. Anyone can make a interesting photo now days if you know how to post process

[khalucha]

I thought a "true" HDR shot was 3 or more different exposures taken by the camera, not done in post processing, correct?

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by khalucha

I thought a "true" HDR shot was 3 or more different exposures taken by the camera, not done in post processing, correct?

As he says in the caption, the picture is 4 different shots. HDR is the post processing by which those multiple shots are blended . . .

Jon

[asis80]

Correct but RAW users can get away with it now. Just load up your shot, knock down the exposure bit by bit to simulate the stops, saving each "stop" then do the same for the positive side of things. Then do your merging, processing, what not and there ya go. If the noise was toned down, and the leveling correct, this would be an ok shot if the submitter didn't say it was an HDR shot. This shot just screamed scandal with that in there hahahaha,

Ben

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by khalucha

I thought a "true" HDR shot was 3 or more different exposures taken by the camera, not done in post processing, correct?

Caption states 4 exposures, which would fall into the definition of HDR. He'd have to do some selective masking to get the full train to show up, though. I've tried to do HDR on a moving train, but when the images are combined, the train shows up more as a ghost. When that happens, you have to take the exposure with the train and selectively "draw" it into the HDR image with a layer mask (or you could delete away the ghosted train).

Originally Posted by asis80

Correct but RAW users can get away with it now. Just load up your shot, knock down the exposure bit by bit to simulate the stops, saving each "stop" then do the same for the positive side of things.

That's not true HDR, Ben.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

As he says in the caption, the picture is 4 different shots. HDR is the post processing by which those multiple shots are blended . . .

Jon

No, it's 4 different exposures. It would be impossible to get 4 shots at the same location all at different exposures of a train "speeding west."

[asis80]

Originally Posted by JimThias

That's not true HDR, Ben.

Let me rephrase, RAW users can get away with cheating, it's called Lazy HDR, lol.

Ben

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Ween

No, it's 4 different exposures. It would be impossible to get 4 shots at the same location all at different exposures of a train "speeding west."

Shots, exposures, you're splitting hairs.

I'm guessing he exposed one frame with the train, waited for it to pass and then did the other three exposures. OR...he made the three exposures just prior to the train coming and then did a fourth with the train in the frame.

[stevenmwelch]

Originally Posted by asis80

Let me rephrase, RAW users can get away with cheating, it's called Lazy HDR, lol.

Ben

Lazy HDR = psuedo HDR.

[milwman]

If he tells us he did it I think its fine if it gets on.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by stevenmwelch

Nevermind the HDR, but, WOW, look at all that noise...

Hard not to have noise in a moving object in low light. The moving object never exposes correctly since it is moving.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Ween

No, it's 4 different exposures. It would be impossible to get 4 shots at the same location all at different exposures of a train "speeding west."

I'm sure he masked out the train while doing the hdr and just used one exposure of the train.

[travsirocz]

I don't have a problem with the shot. I just don't get the random shots that get picked?

PhotoID: 287273 Photograph © Dave Edmondston

This shot looks more hdr then the BNSF one to me. I have no issues with either photos. Way too much hair splitting here. I could pull 100s of over saturated shots out of the database if I wanted. Jim I'm sure already has a file of all the unlevel shots.

[odie]

HDR or not?

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by odie

HDR or not?

I don't know but the sky is in techno color. Maybe a little LSD.

[odie]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

I don't know but the sky is in techno color. Maybe a little LSD.

Is LSD supposed to be bad? You've crossed the line now!

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

I'm sure he masked out the train while doing the hdr and just used one exposure of the train.

I think there's an echo in here...

[travsirocz]

Some points have to be made twice for people to get it.

[khalucha]

Originally Posted by jnohallman

As he says in the caption, the picture is 4 different shots. HDR is the post processing by which those multiple shots are blended . . .

Jon

As to my original post, I should have put more info into it. My bad. I was under the impression that you could not take and HDR shot of a moving object. I would be under the same impression to Jim"s response with the ghosting effect.

[khalucha]

For that other picture, I have seen some shots with the 1dmkII that look like that. I would say it is a regular shot.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by khalucha

For that other picture, I have seen some shots with the 1dmkII that look like that. I would say it is a regular shot.

??? That shade of purple is not a color you see in the sky.

[Joey Bowman]

I think that the Amtrak shot is "real", maybe some slight tweaking with color but nothing too fake looking.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman

I think that the Amtrak shot is "real", maybe some slight tweaking with color but nothing too fake looking.

The sky is purple, red, gray with crazy color separations!