| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2007 10:36:43 PM · #1 |
. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Challenge entry placed 20 out of 319 . . . . . . . . . . . . New HDR version
Which one is better? |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:51:03 PM · #2 |
| I think the hdr is cool but the colors are so bright it looks almost unnatural. I would prefer something in between the two |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:51:22 PM · #3 |
The HDR version ofcourse maybe ud gotten 15 out of 319? didnt look at the challenge im sure it would have gotten better votes but ribboning just on that might be hard.
EDIT - Just looked at the others changed 5th to 15th the top 10 are pretty good. Doesnt make this bad just hard to beat the top 3. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:55:04 PM · #4 |
Rain... I wouldn't expect the new version to ribbon either. I was just wondering how it looks compared to the original. To me, the original looks bland now, even though I received comments that the colors look great.
Claire...I tend to agree that the colors may be a little too saturated now. I've read other comments about tone mapping that indicated that this could be a problem and that the saturation might have to be brought down a little. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:57:45 PM · #5 |
This is a lovely shot with wonderful DOF. I think I prefer the first one, as it looks more natural. The blues are a bit too popped for my taste in the second one - it's like you had a tungsten filter on part of the photo and a warming filter on the flowers - thus the color temperature feels weird, or maybe not possible.
Message edited by author 2007-02-25 22:58:48. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:58:10 PM · #6 |
I prefer the new version. Yes, the colors are "bold" (and thus, slightly less realistic), but it looks great!
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 10:59:02 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
I prefer the new version. Yes, the colors are "bold" (and thus, slightly less realistic), but it looks great! |
I agree...I like the bold colours |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:09:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by hotpasta:
Originally posted by dwterry:
I prefer the new version. Yes, the colors are "bold" (and thus, slightly less realistic), but it looks great! |
I agree...I like the bold colours |
Me too. |
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:22:45 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by hotpasta:
Originally posted by dwterry:
I prefer the new version. Yes, the colors are "bold" (and thus, slightly less realistic), but it looks great! |
I agree...I like the bold colours |
Me too. |
I also like the tone-mapped version better. I don't think it looks so unnatural ... just looks like a well saturated shot that might have been taken with very low ISO film.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2007 11:55:16 PM · #10 |
| Another vote for the HDR version. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 01:08:16 AM · #11 |
| Definitely the HDR. It looks far more natural to me... at least in the northwest, that's what a lot of sunsets really come off as. The colors look "unnatural" and cause a lot of super-saturation to the environment. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 05:08:13 AM · #12 |
Hmmmm... well I'm starting to think that the tone-mapping is waaaaay over-done around these parts.
The original shot is beautiful. The HDR shot is still really cool and probably would have done at least slightly better but, for mine, it does look at least a little unnatural. |
|
|
|
02/26/2007 08:04:29 AM · #13 |
| Thanks for all the input. I think that I'll eventually do another version that tones down the saturation a little bit. I did a quick edit of this HDR version that desaturated only the flowers a little and I liked it better that way. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/04/2025 09:48:36 AM EDT.
