Civiletti,
Wikipedia says exposure fusion is not HDR. (
exposure fusion cannot be considered an HDR technique)
The people who developed the algorithms for exposure fusion say it is not HDR.
The people who write HDR software say it is not HDR.
The people who write exposure fusion software you use say it is not HDR.
And yet somehow you believe they are all wrong. Every single one of them. That boggles the mind.
Note that they do not say "there may be other ways to do HDR", they say flat out "
exposure fusion cannot be considered an HDR technique".
Originally posted by civiletti Karl insists on making a debate out of a discussion of terminology.
I am simply correcting your error. The only "debate" that's happening is you refusing to acknowledge anything I say, and quoting things that do not support your claim.
Originally posted by civiletti HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. He wants it to refer only to files that contain a range of values greater than can be printed or displayed.
It has nothing to do with what "I want" - it has to do with what it actually is.
Or do you support the claim that I swam across the atlantic ocean this summer?
Originally posted by civiletti I am more concerned about dynamic range that I can print or display on a monitor.
That doesn't mean you're doing HDR. You are compressing the dynamic range to fit your display - that is (again, as I said) the opposite of HDR.
Originally posted by civiletti Here are links to pages where LR/enfuse is referred to as HDR.
Thank you for providing some citations. As I suspected they are all from people who don't understand the process - there are not domain experts.
Originally posted by Na Horuk I realize it can feel great when you explain that you are right and someone else is wrong, but when you do, its generally the mark of an adult to be gentlemanly about it, rather than rubbing it in and making the person even more resistant to the idea of agreeing with you.
True enough. Thank you for reminding me of the importance of tact.
However my first few messages are a testament to the point that no amount of tact will help Civletti to understand what I'm saying - he began with snide comments borne out of Dunning-Krueger ignorance, and continued to in that vein - for example he still insisted that the Wikipedia article he quoted supported his position, when I explained clearly how it did not, and how his chosen source explicitly said he was incorrect.
Originally posted by Na Horuk distinction between processes can be helpful when trying to achieve a certain look
Yes, and since Racer X 69 explicitly wanted to know how to achieve a certain look (tonemapped) it's important to keep the terminology correct - it does not help him (or anyone else who wants to learn this technique) if the correct information he is given is condescendingly attacked by those who do not understand it.