EOB Photo

Please let me know your thoughts on these. Thanks.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I don't like to be overly critical, but would suggest these look a little "overcooked." My suggestion is to use some of the presets which produce a more lifelike appearance.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I am not a fan of HDR but yours are not too bad but you have overdone them slightly, try redoing them without so much colour intensity.

EOB Photo

Thanks for the feedback so far. Yes I admit they are a bit on the gothic side.

But as for photographers, we have to have thick skin and be open to learning and trying different approaches.

sailor2545 Loc: Victoria, BC

i would redo all...overdone,,,keep trying

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

You've gotten some good advice. My advice is that the picture should not leap out at you as an HDR image. It should be more subtle. Use it to improve the dark areas and to improve the light areas. But not so much that the picture looks unnatural.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm definitely not a fan of HDR. I've played with it, can do it, just not a huge proponent. These, like many, when people start using the technique are a bit over cooked.
--Bob

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

You may wish to try, if using HDR EFEX, the "Dark" preset, or if using Photomatix Pro, the "Deep" setting often produces pleasing results without overcooking.

Wanda Krack Loc: Tennessee, USA

#3, the steel looking building with nice sky color in the background looks good to me. Most HDR programs have sliders.....keep working!

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

If you're using PhotoMatix, try the Natural Fusion pre-set -- using fusion as opposed to tone mapping. For architectural photos, it leads to a more natural result.

skylane5sp Loc: Puyallup, WA

#3 appears to be the best of the lot. The others are a bit overdone - It's a fine line. Keep trying!

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I am going to show an HDR example to help you judge how to proceed. First I will start with 3 images, separated from each other by 2EV. Taken with a full frame Sony A99 using a Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-f4.5. (I still like the older lenses)

Image #1 is the mid image of the 3 HDR images. As you can see, it is rather bland and detail is not very obvious.

Image #4 is HDR using NIK HDR EFEX Pro 2. I have several HDR solutions to play with and no one of them seems to always be the one that does the best job. This time, I liked the NIK implementation. As you should be able to see, the detail has become much better and the image looks good without harsh shadows.

Image #5 was an attempt to not do HDR and to only use the middle original image and to use DxO Optics Pro Elite to try to duplicate what the HDR SW did. As you can see, the shadows are much harsher. And looking at the tree trunk on the left, it is much darker. And the final result is just not as pleasing. Now this is not DxO's fault. It is very useful and good SW, but it did not have the same range of inputs to work with and there was no way to subdue those harsh shadows.

My opinion is that the HDR solution produced the best result. But, it also did so in such a way that it does not shout out that it is an HDR image. I also had the greatest control over the final result. But there was plenty of slider left that I could have greatly over-cooked the image had I wanted to.

I would like to see your original images scaled back so that the images look more natural and see how much you can improve them. Hope this gave you some ideas.

original

(Download)

-2 EV

(Download)

+2 EV

(Download)

NIK EFEX Pro 2

(Download)

DxO Optics Pro Elite

(Download)

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I hate the dark blue sky, I love the red fire sky....

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

All overcooked with way too much saturation and lacking contrast in many areas. Frankly, methinks these frames would benefit more from some straight forward post, but that's me.

10MPlayer Loc: California

++