| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2011 10:24:39 AM |
|
 Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/10/2011 10:00:22 AM |
| Personally, I like that I don't see haloing which is common among HDR attempts. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/10/2011 03:31:21 AM |
I think I would have cooked the sky a bit more. It looks so bright and sunny that the shift from light to shadow on the cliffs seems too subtle, and therefore unbelievable. Had you burnt the clouds and darkened the sky it would have added drama to the sky, lowered the contrast form sky to ground and made the image a bit less bifurcated.
To my mind the hardest thing about HDR is getting the final image back to how the eye took in the scene and not let what the camera took in limit you. Since you can have the full 10 stop variety that the eye sees (and the mind perceives) in an HDR, the temptation is to even everything out into flat plasticity rather than the smooth variations that we see in the world.
I can imagine seeing this image with dark brush with a few high lights, the cliffs as you presented them and a darker sky. It would highlight for the viewer to the area with the greatest interest, and make a convincing whole. Maybe. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/10/2011 02:18:13 AM |
| One important thing in HDR is you need to make sure that your darkest shot does not contain any "blinkies" or at least as little blinkies as possible unless you are shooting into a light source. This will ensure that you will not end up with blown highlights like parts of the clouds in your picture. On my camera, I keep pressing the info button to turn on the blinkies. It is very tempting to cross the line of natural and HDR look and sometimes very hard to stop. I think overall you did very well and I am sure over time you will do an even better job. Nice start! |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/10/2011 01:46:59 AM |
Nice Kristina
I assume you have been reading the links I sent you (and can be found on my Edward Weston photo comments).
Yes any time you use multiple exposures to get more dynamic range in an image it is HDR. Sadly most people only think HDR is when it is Tonemapped and ends up looking like that "Cartoon" like effect.
I know you used Topaz a bit here which is a form of tonemapping but you have kept it looking realistic and it is a nice shot. The only thing I would have done is sharpened it a bit more - it looks a little soft to me. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 07:04:59 PM |
A question, so what you did is take the two images and use a portion of each for the final, the sky portion of one, the land portion of the other? I'm trying to think, and I don't mean it nasty or anything, but I'm trying to remember: is that HDR? I mean, is work like this considered HDR work? This makes me want to eat my words about the light looking a bit flat, as so many HDR images tend to look. I mean, if the land portion is one photo and the sky portion another, same scene, different exposures, then if anything looks flat it doesn't have anything to do with HDR. Or maybe it doens't even look flat. Now I don't trust myself at all anymore :)
|
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 05:59:18 PM |
Very Nice.
Edit: Just read that you only used 1 shot for the land and 1 for the sky...? But...did you use any of the "sky" exposure to mix with the land? In other words..Is the land actually 2 exposures mixed?
Message edited by author 2011-04-09 18:01:45. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 01:23:41 PM |
| It looks great, but most of all it looks real. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 12:48:55 PM |
Very nice first attempt. So did you use 3 images combined 2 stops apart, single image or what?
Nice job contolling the clouds. It is so easy to get weird blacks in the shadows. I think that they could use a little more structure though. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 12:35:23 PM |
Nice, in particular the bottom 2/3rds of the image. The sky not quite so much; it looks blown, with funny contrasts. The picture still has that flattish HDR feel to it, even though it doesn't look fake. Somehow, to my mind, there needs to be a light adjustment after the HDR to counter this tendency of HDR to make things look too even.
I think one of the things that HDR does is bring out "flaws" in the image that you might overlook otherwise. In this image, the HDR really brings out the beautiful textures of the sagebrush in front, but it also brings out that big hole at bottom left, where the eye keeps getting stuck. In a more traditional conversion it might be possible to minimize that hole much better. Not sure about that.
If you want a good resource for HDR, try David Nightingale's book, "Practical HDR" (//www.amazon.com/Practical-HDR-complete-creating-Dynamic/dp/0240812492). David knows HDR - he's one of the best when it comes to using HDR to the advantage of the picture. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 12:25:00 PM |
| Exceptionally subtle use of HDR. First timers tend to overdo it in a big way,but this is very understated. Actually, I'm not sure I would've picked this as an HDR image if you hadn't said so! That can be good or bad depending on what you were trying to get out of it! |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
04/09/2011 12:01:59 PM |
| I think you did a good job. Not overdone and fake looking like a lot of HDR shots I see. |
|
| Photographer found comment helpful. |
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: 06/20/2025 12:24:54 AM EDT.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
