| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2006 09:51:05 PM · #1 |
I've been promising my wife to make a very large (20x30) print of Bass Harbor Light for about a year. Because I did the edits on a reduced version of the photo (Doh!), I needed to start over with the full resolution RAW file in order to make the print.
So last night I tried reprocessing the image, using some of my new tools (including the latest version of Bibble and it's plug-ins to convert the RAW, and PhotoMatix to do some tone mapping, trying to get a bit more tonality out of it.
And therein lies the rub! I like both versions, but I wonder if I spoiled the mood of the original by opening up the tonal range. (This is a danger of PhotoMatix and HDR in general I think. Sometimes I think dark can be moodier.
So I am looking for opinions. I am only going to show the new one here, and a link to the old. Because I'd prefer that you look at the new one and form an opinion before comparing the two.
So, please share your:
1) First impressions of this (note that this is scaled down from the new 3000x4500 pixel print version simply using PS reduce image and I didn't do anything to compensate after that other than frame it.
2) Which version do you like better?
3) If the new one is good, anything I should do to improve it before printing? (If the old one is better, than perhaps make sure you share why, as I'll have to rebuild it for the larger size and try to produce a more comparable version.
After that long winded intro, here's the image:
And here's the link to the original as published on DPC:
Bass Harbor Light as first published
Thanks in advance for your opinions!
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 09:55:00 PM · #2 |
my view:
first impression (ive seen the original many time before this) is that the sky is very dramatic and the lighhthouse is excelently exposed.
however after comparing the two side by side, i think i like the foreground better in the first one, but the sky and lighthouse better in the second.
-Dan
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 09:56:38 PM · #3 |
| I really like both images. They are equally pleasing to the eye :). However, my personal preference for a large print to frame would be the most recent edited version. I like the difference in colors & the added bit of softness. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 09:57:36 PM · #4 |
You've gone too far. The background water is better in the HDR version. The lighthouse itself might be better halfway between the two. Everything else, including the sky, looks better to me in the original, ESPECIALLY the foreground tide pool, which is utterly destroyed in the new version.
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 09:57:49 PM · #5 |
I personally love the original. To me this one does not seem quite as dramatic or as detailed as the original. (edit after viewing side by side)
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 21:59:37. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 09:59:25 PM · #6 |
I miss the reflection in the new version, it is an important part of the composition which helps balance the photo. But the sky is much more interesting in the new version, prehaps too much?
Back to the foreground, the plants seem to be a lot sharper in the original - maybe a more sharpened version would compare better to the original.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:01:59 PM · #7 |
| I agree totally with dr & bear. Something is lost without the clear reflection in the foreground pool. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:02:57 PM · #8 |
Comparing the two, I like the new one a smidge better, but they are both fantastic.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:07:45 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:10:38 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by I Enjoy Ham:
my view:
first impression (ive seen the original many time before this) is that the sky is very dramatic and the lighhthouse is excelently exposed.
however after comparing the two side by side, i think i like the foreground better in the first one, but the sky and lighthouse better in the second.
-Dan |
Concur. |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:11:45 PM · #11 |
I prefer the original. But for me, what I find distracting is the extra light in the middle of the image. It keeps drawing my attention away, and yet there's nothing really to see in the middle. The middle also appears to be more distorted/out of focus in the new edit as well. But that might be a by-product of reducing it for the web.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:17:07 PM · #12 |
| prefer the original all the way |
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:17:31 PM · #13 |
Gotta go with the old one, 100%. To me, there is more detail on the original, especially in the rocks. I've been on those pink rocks and the new version doesn't look like the rocks that I remember. And although the sky may be more saturated in the new version (and who doesn't love a saturated sky?), it just doesn't look natural to me.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:17:41 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Drummie:
I really like both images. They are equally pleasing to the eye :). However, my personal preference for a large print to frame would be the most recent edited version. I like the difference in colors & the added bit of softness. |
I was about to say I like the color in the new one better but the sharpness in the old one better. You can't please everyone...
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:20:33 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by viajero:
Originally posted by Drummie:
I really like both images. They are equally pleasing to the eye :). However, my personal preference for a large print to frame would be the most recent edited version. I like the difference in colors & the added bit of softness. |
I was about to say I like the color in the new one better but the sharpness in the old one better. You can't please everyone... |
The new one is reduced to 640 from an image that's interpolated up (to 3000x4500). I didn't even bother to sharpen it after reducing. But I will do that and replace the post in a minute if that helps people compare.
Edit: Ok, I applied a bit of sharpening to the new one.
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 22:25:24.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:34:38 PM · #16 |
that's improved the comparision quite a bit - now I'm quite hard pressed to choose between the two. I would be happy to have either on my wall. I think that prehaps the sky in the new version is a bit over the top, but lets face it, thats not always a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2006 10:35:53 PM · #17 |
I, too, am with Bear and Timbo, by and large.
I find the fore- and middle-grounds of the new version too muddy. The colour definition is gone, the clarity is gone, and the sky is about two dollars and fifty cents of so-called digital art compared to to the original, which was a credible and (therefore) delightful rendition.
It is very easy to loose one's aesthetic position in a sea of choices and available tools. I think it's important to stay true to ourselves and remind ourselves of what we love and believe in, no matter who the mistress is and how skilled her makeup artist, and this,
I know, isn't easy.
Message edited by author 2006-11-13 22:37:28.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:18:57 PM EDT.
