ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

For those considering trying the HDR technique, here are four examples of a single image. The examples are:
1. original image with NO PPing of any kind.
2. same image processed in Photomatix using only the default preset and no additional PPing.
3. same image using the default preset in Photomatix and then some PPing in PS ACR
4. same image and processing as #3, but then using Nik software and the presets of Tonal Contrast and Glamor Glow

These examples show that using the HDR technique to capture a wide area of tonal ranges, you can create any type final image of your choice. Plus, you can stay away from the overcooked look that is so easily achieved and frankly, for most of us, looks like crap.

In my HDR editing I usually go for the look evident in examples #3 or #4. Its a personal taste.

Original Image NO PPing

(Download)

Photomatix with Default Preset

(Download)

Same as #2 and Adding PS ACR PPing

(Download)

Same as #3 adding Nik Software presets

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Of the three, my preference is #3. I like the overall tonality of that one.
--Bob

ExTech2

#1 definitely the best.

RicknJude Loc: Quebec, Canada

HDR is kind of a personal thing. What is it about image #1 that you like. Is it the blown out rocks and sky?

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

I'm not sure most would settle for #1 w/o doing some PP. Even if you did not gave access to HDR software, you most certainly would want to polish the image in ACR or LR.

I encourage you to take #1 and see what you can do with it.

In the upper left corner is a train. Its not identifiable to the point of distraction. I'd remove it.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

#1 for me as well. I probably would have exposed the image 1-2 stops less to avoid blow-out, then used the dodge brush tool to lighten up any areas as needed.

The reason I prefer #1 over the others is because it displays sense of depth the strongest, while the hdr processed images look more flat, two-dimensional. Also the colors and highlights look more natural in #1, with none of those overpowering neon lime-green tones. For this type of image, generally I prefer a natural, believable look, rather than how I imagine the scene would appear to me after ingesting a bottle of amphetamines. And that's why I prefer using the editor's burn and dodge tools to make adjustments to shadows and highlights - for controlled, more subtle changes.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

As an ex HDR man I now have mixed feelings about it. Not sure and never was its ideal for landscape shots. It alters the colours too drastically and gives scenes a flat appearance with lime greens prominent.
I have now come full circle almost and think HDR is great for certain subjects and should be pushed to make colours garish and give the photo a n almost cartoonish look.
A modern DSLR is capable of capturing an enormous tonal range and plug ins such as NIK are so advanced that Photomatix is almost redundant software.
If the range of tones cannot be captured by a single shot merging a bracketed burst WITHOUT tone mapping gives a much more natural looking picture to work on.
So No 1 gets my vote subjected to normal PP work will make a super image

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Interesting comparison. I like the original better than the plain HDR; but that fourth shot is really nice. Good ol' Nik software. Nice.

MattPhox Loc: Rhode Island

#4 is my choice. Really nice.