HDR or Not
Jan 27, 2012 07:18:29 #
Jan 27, 2012 07:39:07 #
Jan 27, 2012 07:54:03 #
I love the original, it's the one I would frame and hang in the den. Photo 2 is the postcard I would buy to send to my friends to make them jealous of where I vacationed; it's beautiful and dramatic.
Jan 27, 2012 08:30:05 #
ACE
Loc: Atlanta GA
The problem with HDR is that actually you do not see things likr that. A neat effect may be. But it is not reality.
Jan 27, 2012 08:49:55 #
Bmac wrote:
Below is a photo taken of Lapland Lake which is in the southern part of the Adirondack Mountains in NY. Photograph one is the photo posted on the thread "Lapland Lake." The next two are renditions of the image in two different HDR versions. It was suggested I try an HDR version by a member of the forum, so my question is, does HDR work for the image or not? C&C welcomed.
Stats are: Nikon D80 with 18-135mm lens shot at ISO 400, 22mm F/16 at 1/100 sec.
Stats are: Nikon D80 with 18-135mm lens shot at ISO 400, 22mm F/16 at 1/100 sec.
Bmac, I like the 1st pic, everything appears sharp, but if I had to pick an HDR edit #2 wins.
Larry
Jan 27, 2012 09:44:45 #
Hadrien
Loc: Massachusetts
Love both your HDR renditions. I prefer the second one and would only suggest that you slide the highlights down a tad to get some def in that hot spot in the clouds. Love'em these adjustments just jump out at you and no matter how much criticism this gets you will notice that if you were to desaturate the shot, the results would look a lot more Adams-ish than if you were to desaturate you first shot and this goes much further than a mere contrast and luminosity adjustment. You did great I bet you like # 2 &3 best! Keep going!
Jan 27, 2012 09:48:55 #
I like the first two equally. They are unique in their own right. The second one works because it brings out the clouds which is how I came to hear about HDR in the first place.
The third one is good, too, but it just seems a little less intense than the second one.
The third one is good, too, but it just seems a little less intense than the second one.
Jan 27, 2012 10:21:00 #
Jan 27, 2012 10:32:56 #
I like the original, nothing blown out. The shadows have dark areas but nothing I find unacceptable. The other two are fine, but do not have a natural look, which is fine if that is what you like.
Jan 27, 2012 10:51:20 #
Jan 27, 2012 10:58:42 #
BMac
I see HDR and Inferred photography as another form of artwork. If you had a great picture you probably wouldn't want to mess with it. But if you had an ok picture, HDR makes it more interesting. Someone on this forum had posted some of his inferred pics and they were great, just different. He had a picture of a golf course (I think) with a pond and trees. I'm sure when the picture was take without inferred it looked somewhat boring. Everything is green, but take it with inferred and the trees pop, looks like a winter wonderland. So for your question, does HDR work for the image or not. Differently as another form of artwork, No if your trying to make it look natural. If your trying to keep your pics looking natural you may need to look at other HDR programs. On this link someone compared different programs
http://captainkimo.com/hdr-software-review-comparison/
JMO
I see HDR and Inferred photography as another form of artwork. If you had a great picture you probably wouldn't want to mess with it. But if you had an ok picture, HDR makes it more interesting. Someone on this forum had posted some of his inferred pics and they were great, just different. He had a picture of a golf course (I think) with a pond and trees. I'm sure when the picture was take without inferred it looked somewhat boring. Everything is green, but take it with inferred and the trees pop, looks like a winter wonderland. So for your question, does HDR work for the image or not. Differently as another form of artwork, No if your trying to make it look natural. If your trying to keep your pics looking natural you may need to look at other HDR programs. On this link someone compared different programs
http://captainkimo.com/hdr-software-review-comparison/
JMO
Jan 27, 2012 11:57:11 #
i go for #1, 2 and 3 seem a tad over done.in this case i go for subtle.
Jan 27, 2012 12:59:38 #
pwd2004ringo wrote:
BMac br I see HDR and Inferred photography as anot... (show quote)
This is the first time I have posted an HDR photo. No, I wasn't trying for a natural look, whatever that is. Usually, when I'm tired of the "natural look" I change to B&W. I thought my original was quite good, and I was pleased with it, so no, I wasn't trying to make a lousy photo look good. Honestly, I was simply having fun and to my eye liked the resulting HDR effects, but thank you for your comments and the link. :)
Jan 27, 2012 13:10:49 #
My mantra is "it's about the final image" - how one gets there is actually both unimportant(happy accident) and totally important (technique)# 2 is the most pleasing to me and presents a better image. That dosent denigrate #1 or #3. Nor does it mean that HDR is a improvement over conventional photograph. IMO, #2 is a better image.
Jan 27, 2012 13:15:11 #
Call me an old fuddy duddy but I don't see the big advantage of HDR, makes an otherwise good photo look too cartoonish! Of those 3 photos I like the original the best.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.