This was the sunset at our place this weekend. I used 3 photo at -2 0 +2 and then cleaned it up in PSE 10
Exposure at 0
HDR Version
That is what HDR is about. Very good.
Bangee5 wrote:
That is what HDR is about. Very good.
Thank you and it helps when I am lucky enough to have nice sunsets to work with as we often do.
donnz
Loc: Auckland, New Zealand
a lot of HDR I don't like but that is awesome
I think you have done a fantastic job processing this, you have really brought out the hidden details. But a thought. The thing about sunsets is that the light is highly directional and it does have strong contrasts. So although there is no doubt that the details are now there it actually seems a little incongruous, almost as if you can see too much and as a pic it therefore may lose a little credibility. I also think you may have lost something of the atmosphere by cutting back on the intensity of the sun and dropping the colour in the sky. Its one of those crazy artistic questions to do with HDR, just because you can bring out all the details should you always do so or is there a case for sometimes choosing a middle road. I tried an experiment. I downloaded your 0 shot and the HDR. I opened them in PS layered one on top of the other and used a layer mask to blend elements of both together. I blended areas on the left and right of the hill line so that the further you moved away from the centre the less detail there was but obviously not to the stage of your 0 shot. I blended the sun to move the glare back towards how it was (but obviously not as intense as the original) and I introduced some of the glow back into the sky but without losing the details you had brought out. I also darkened down the areas of the trees not facing the sun but again retained some of the detail you had brought out.The results were really interesting and to my eye it feels more believable. It might be worth a try to see what you think but if you think I am mad then that's ok because you have got a great pic anyway. Sorry if it seems that whenever someone does something good and there is no doubt that this pic is good, that I always seem to be saying ..'Yes but have you tried.." But I think that the challenge is not just to be good but to aim higher, aim to be brilliant.
Hope this helps
Peter
Chinaman
Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Terrific work, Biker Chic. The posters in this section are producing really good HDR work. I wonder if you have a series that shows more of the tree on the left, infact showing all of it, including the top and left. I just feel it is zoomed in a bit too much and a wider vista will look nicer.
Peter, I agree with the drop in intensity of the light especially on the mountain range. In real life, the eyes adjust constantly to show sharpness and details unless you are staring straight into the sun. So an image showing details at sunset is not incongrous at all, IMO. It would be good if Biker Chic allows you to post your edit as I am more of a visual person than a wordy one.
conkerwood wrote:
I think you have done a fantastic job processing this, you have really brought out the hidden details. But a thought. The thing about sunsets is that the light is highly directional and it does have strong contrasts. So although there is no doubt that the details are now there it actually seems a little incongruous, almost as if you can see too much and as a pic it therefore may lose a little credibility. I also think you may have lost something of the atmosphere by cutting back on the intensity of the sun and dropping the colour in the sky. Its one of those crazy artistic questions to do with HDR, just because you can bring out all the details should you always do so or is there a case for sometimes choosing a middle road. I tried an experiment. I downloaded your 0 shot and the HDR. I opened them in PS layered one on top of the other and used a layer mask to blend elements of both together. I blended areas on the left and right of the hill line so that the further you moved away from the centre the less detail there was but obviously not to the stage of your 0 shot. I blended the sun to move the glare back towards how it was (but obviously not as intense as the original) and I introduced some of the glow back into the sky but without losing the details you had brought out. I also darkened down the areas of the trees not facing the sun but again retained some of the detail you had brought out.The results were really interesting and to my eye it feels more believable. It might be worth a try to see what you think but if you think I am mad then that's ok because you have got a great pic anyway. Sorry if it seems that whenever someone does something good and there is no doubt that this pic is good, that I always seem to be saying ..'Yes but have you tried.." But I think that the challenge is not just to be good but to aim higher, aim to be brilliant.
Hope this helps
Peter
I think you have done a fantastic job processing t... (
show quote)
Chinaman wrote:
Terrific work, Biker Chic. The posters in this section are producing really good HDR work. I wonder if you have a series that shows more of the tree on the left, infact showing all of it, including the top and left. I just feel it is zoomed in a bit too much and a wider vista will look nicer.
Peter, I agree with the drop in intensity of the light especially on the mountain range. In real life, the eyes adjust constantly to show sharpness and details unless you are staring straight into the sun. So an image showing details at sunset is not incongrous at all, IMO. It would be good if Biker Chic allows you to post your edit as I am more of a visual person than a wordy one.
Terrific work, Biker Chic. The posters in this sec... (
show quote)
Yes Conkerwood Please post your version. This is how I learn, and if I didn't get some critical feedback how would I grow?
It is obvious that both you and Chinaman have more experience in this type of photography. Between you two, the books, webinars, and just plain old playing around with the programs, I am growing by leaps and bounds.
I only learned what HDR was back in about March of 2012. When I started I thought all you had to do to call it HDR is take a JPEG and throw it into Photomatix. I see now how much of an ART all of this really is.
So in a nutshell, I give you my permission to use any of the photos I post here to demonstrate to me what you think I can improve on.
BTW... I have redone the grape leaf shot and sharpened the background like you suggested. I like how it turned out but I didn't post it again because I noticed that it was still a little crooked so I want to fix that.. :lol:
Thanks
Very nice results. The fence really helps make the image.
donnz wrote:
a lot of HDR I don't like but that is awesome
Fotoholic wrote:
I love the HDR version!
jeep_daddy wrote:
Very nice results. The fence really helps make the image.
:thumbup: Thank You for the kind words.
Biker_Chic wrote:
conkerwood wrote:
I think you have done a fantastic job processing this, you have really brought out the hidden details. But a thought. The thing about sunsets is that the light is highly directional and it does have strong contrasts. So although there is no doubt that the details are now there it actually seems a little incongruous, almost as if you can see too much and as a pic it therefore may lose a little credibility. I also think you may have lost something of the atmosphere by cutting back on the intensity of the sun and dropping the colour in the sky. Its one of those crazy artistic questions to do with HDR, just because you can bring out all the details should you always do so or is there a case for sometimes choosing a middle road. I tried an experiment. I downloaded your 0 shot and the HDR. I opened them in PS layered one on top of the other and used a layer mask to blend elements of both together. I blended areas on the left and right of the hill line so that the further you moved away from the centre the less detail there was but obviously not to the stage of your 0 shot. I blended the sun to move the glare back towards how it was (but obviously not as intense as the original) and I introduced some of the glow back into the sky but without losing the details you had brought out. I also darkened down the areas of the trees not facing the sun but again retained some of the detail you had brought out.The results were really interesting and to my eye it feels more believable. It might be worth a try to see what you think but if you think I am mad then that's ok because you have got a great pic anyway. Sorry if it seems that whenever someone does something good and there is no doubt that this pic is good, that I always seem to be saying ..'Yes but have you tried.." But I think that the challenge is not just to be good but to aim higher, aim to be brilliant.
Hope this helps
Peter
I think you have done a fantastic job processing t... (
show quote)
Chinaman wrote:
Terrific work, Biker Chic. The posters in this section are producing really good HDR work. I wonder if you have a series that shows more of the tree on the left, infact showing all of it, including the top and left. I just feel it is zoomed in a bit too much and a wider vista will look nicer.
Peter, I agree with the drop in intensity of the light especially on the mountain range. In real life, the eyes adjust constantly to show sharpness and details unless you are staring straight into the sun. So an image showing details at sunset is not incongrous at all, IMO. It would be good if Biker Chic allows you to post your edit as I am more of a visual person than a wordy one.
Terrific work, Biker Chic. The posters in this sec... (
show quote)
Yes Conkerwood Please post your version. This is how I learn, and if I didn't get some critical feedback how would I grow?
It is obvious that both you and Chinaman have more experience in this type of photography. Between you two, the books, webinars, and just plain old playing around with the programs, I am growing by leaps and bounds.
I only learned what HDR was back in about March of 2012. When I started I thought all you had to do to call it HDR is take a JPEG and throw it into Photomatix. I see now how much of an ART all of this really is.
So in a nutshell, I give you my permission to use any of the photos I post here to demonstrate to me what you think I can improve on.
BTW... I have redone the grape leaf shot and sharpened the background like you suggested. I like how it turned out but I didn't post it again because I noticed that it was still a little crooked so I want to fix that.. :lol:
Thanks
quote=conkerwood I think you have done a fantasti... (
show quote)
Thanks Biker Chic. I am always hesitant to fiddle with an already really good pic without permission. Firstly I completely agree with Chinaman that the eye is always adjusting, thats the essence of HDR. But what I wanted to do was to keep the detail and sharpness, the HDRness if you like while at the same time bringing back some of the elements which I find very powerful in your 0 image. So as I said I layered the 0 onto the HDR, set up a layer mask and did the following.
I intensified the sun a little to bring back some its eye squinting power. I returned some of the golden glow to the sky and in the hill area directly below the sun. I wanted to create a sense of darkness closing in so I blended to drop the intensity on the left and lower left. I wanted to retain the directionality of the light from the sun so I blended to slightly darken the shade side of the trees. These are all subtle changes which only slightly reduced the detail in certain areas but to my eye and I stress that its to my eye (which means it might not be to everyone else's) it works.
As for you coming on leaps and bounds you certainly are, I think in you we have another HDR addict in the making and its a great addiction.
Hope the pic helps
Peter
Chinaman
Loc: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Cheers Peter. I visualise it now. Subtle but effective.
conkerwood wrote:
Thanks Biker Chic. I am always hesitant to fiddle with an already really good pic without permission.
I intensified the sun a little to bring back some its eye squinting power. I returned some of the golden glow to the sky and in the hill area directly below the sun. I wanted to create a sense of darkness closing in so I blended to drop the intensity on the left and lower left. I wanted to retain the directionality of the light from the sun so I blended to slightly darken the shade side of the trees. These are all subtle changes which only slightly reduced the detail in certain areas but to my eye and I stress that its to my eye (which means it might not be to everyone else's) it works.
As for you coming on leaps and bounds you certainly are, I think in you we have another HDR addict in the making and its a great addiction.
Hope the pic helps
Peter
Thanks Biker Chic. I am always hesitant to fiddle ... (
show quote)
Thanks
I see what you are talking about, it is subtle I had to keep flipping up and down to see it.
You know the sun was kind of like your rendition at first, and I added the so called star effect, just to add something different, using a layer mask LOL.
I would have liked it a tad lighter over all...that's how I remember it looking. I tried to lighten the entire thing and bring it back down, but it didn't work how I wanted so I left it dark...Then I realized I forgot to take my polarizing lens filter off when I took the pictures no wonder it's that dark.
I remember the grass just under the tree being the thing that drew my attention because it seemed to just glow with the rays of the sun.
Thanks for your input on things.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.