KG

I took the raw file, made -1,0,+1 EV copies and combined them to bring out more detail in the architecture.

It's not so much to create a surreal look, just to get a better final image.

I don't like the skin tone here, but my printer/ink/paper calibration differs from monitor, so pictures with such skin tone come out perfect on paper.

Also, I'm now a fan of using ND filters and wider aperture. So if I were to redo this shot, it would have shallower DOF. So the background would be a bit blurrier, so that they eye wouldn't get confused on what's in focus and would concentrate on the subjects.

Original


-1,0,+1 combined


side by side, right is processed, the sky is now darker


side by side, top is processed, the building is now lighter

MadMike Loc: SALT LAKE

Thanks for your example, lots of people are learning, and these show the difference well.

snails_pace Loc: Utah

It looks like you accomplished what you set out to do - show more detail in the building area and bring out the sky more.

Just a non-HDR comment - sometimes DOF is best done with post-work. You may have done the best thing since you can blur the background later - and adjust the amount until it looks right to you.

Just as a quick demo, I used Focal Point 2 on the low res pic as an example. On a picture I was going to print, I'd spend more time on the edges of the foreground couple.

I didn't ask if I could modify your picture before I did it, so I will delete it if you want.

Focal Point 2 example

Doe Loc: N, Augusta, South Carolina

I think you did a very good job. I will have to try that as well. THANKS

llindstrand Loc: Seattle Metro

Nice picture with great composition. Your HDR is done well. I would second the ND filter use. If you had used a graduated ND filter on this show it would have done wonders for the sky. I started using them for sunsets and sunrises exclusively. Then we went on a couple of trips where there was an extremely bright sunshine. I used a solid ND filter for a lot of shots and added a GND if I was trying to get sky and subject at the same time. It worked well as I don't get to make all the shots at early morning or early evening. The SND works well on flowers.
Swede

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Looking at that picture all I can see is a change in lighting and NOT detail...

It would be nice to see the detail within those shaded arches, and everywhere else that has dark shadows. Yes it looks lighter but I cannot physically see anything in detail. My eyes might not be perfect and everything may well be pin sharp with great detail.

Is your picture pin sharp and does it show detail?

I think it might but a thumbnail does not do it credit.

conkerwood

I like the pic and what you have done but I would argue that this is not pseudoHDR. You can achieve exactly the same result in PS by creating a layer, lightening it and then using a layer mask to selectively paint in the lighter areas that you want. Then do the same again with darkening. The result is exactly as you have achieved lighter and darker areas and that no doubt improves the picture. But that is not HDR. HDR, even pseudo HDR involves tone mapping. (As opposed to exposure fusion which does not involve tome mapping) If you had put your single image into photomatix, or a similar program and created a pseudo HDR and gone through the tonemapping process you would have ended up with a far different pic. I am not saying a better or worse pic only that what you have created is not pseudo HDR.

Peter