R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for posting, Swede. The HDR processing has done its job of bringing forth the details.

Dynamic Contrast sounds interesting. It sounds like it might be a cross between Clarity and Vibrance. In LR, both of these operate selectively (i.e. dynamically).

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Much better. But I'd say even this one could have the brightness tweaked a bit more.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I was wondering who'd be first with a horizontal crop. I composed for width and let the foreground sea take care of itself. Thanks for your contribution, AH. Like me, you like to exercise a fair bit of restraint in your edits.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It'd be interesting to know if this was a merge or a single shot edit, bdk. Whatever it was, the light levels and colours have been solidly rendered.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

I am an HDR fan for sure but never been convinced that its good on most landscapes. Makes skies over dramatic and here makes the sea look 3D almost. For a rusty tractor HDR every time for gentle rolling hills probably not. Use HDR where you need to not cos you can is oft said.

So I just merge the DNG files without tone mapping and export as a 32 bit Tiff. All the information is there without the extremes of manipulation caused by HDR software.
Then a threshold and Channels adjustment using a Blend mode and finished with NIK filters

Portsoy

(Download)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I agree with all that you said. Of course it does raise the question "Where do you NEED HDR?" In this shot it looks like the whites in the neutral exposure were not blown, although having said that, it's hard to say how CLOSE they came to being too bright. And that points to the more general question "How extreme does the lighting need to be?"

And that in turn points to one of the strengths of HDR - it gives you a safety net, and when it works you should end up with an optimised exposure. The neutral exposure may have captured the whole luminosity range of the scene, but it might have been a close call. With HDR I was more-or-less guaranteed a complete capture (I set my camera to use the biggest steps that it can for HDR bracketing, which is +/- 2).

The real advantage of an optimised exposure shows itself when you come to do further editing. There's more headroom when it comes to manipulating lighting levels, due to the fact that there's less noise and more data to work with. And that's also why most times an edited merge will produce better results than a single-shot HDR edit.

While we're on the subject of further editing, I would say that your edit is still a bit dark in the shadows. If I remember right, your preference is Photomatrix. Does it attempt to produce a finished product from the merge, or does it assume that you'll be doing further editing? I know that with Lightroom it's the latter. That's why I said in a previous thread that it's unfair to compare Lightroom's merge facility with one that attempts to provide a finished edit.

Coming back to your edit, the sea looks smooth and deeply coloured. I'd say it's the best rendering of the sea so far. Thanks for contributing and commenting.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

The slight darkness is the dreaded HOG algorithm RG. Looks OK here on my monitor I normally lighten whatever I upload to the HOG but think I forgot on this one.
Photomatix allows you to save as a 32 bit Tiff without tone mapping the images just like PS. I never consider the tone mapped image as the finished product its the beginning of the processing for me. Much more time is spent processing it in PS after the Photomatix tone mapped image is produced
I prefer and always use Photoshop Merge to HDR Pro for merges. Photomatix colours can be a little garish and it makes skies a horrible flat wedgewood blue color.
To be perfectly honest the plug ins and pre sets available now are so good that HDR is a bit redundant. I use it as a fun tool now usually for cars and yep make em a tad cartoonish. For a serious image I simply merge and use the 32 bit Tiff along with Photoshop and assorted filters.
Tone mapping makes its own set of problems like halos and flat looking images that merging avoids.
On this image you posted I would never consider Photomatix or any tone mapping software. You would lose the natural look and in my humble opinion spoil a good shot. This of course is just my opinion and others may like the HDR look given to a seascape.

bobburk3 Loc: Maryland

This is my favorite of all the different versions.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Great result 🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Beautifully done ☀️☀️☀️☀️☀️