# undergrowth of branches



## bs0604 (May 14, 2012)

branches-2 by bs0604, on Flickr


----------



## grapnell (May 15, 2012)

doesn't look HDR


----------



## Compaq (May 15, 2012)

Could you elaborate on your observations, Grapnell?


----------



## grapnell (May 15, 2012)

no detail in the shadows at all.


----------



## Bynx (May 15, 2012)

Excellent image bs0604. Grapnell is speaking from the voice of inexperience. There are no great highlights in the shot and the shadows have more detail than you notice at the small size but are evident at the larger size. Your focus and depth of field is perfect.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 15, 2012)

I was going to say this looks like a great HDR! I could tell right away that this was.

Bynx is correct that on a larger size you would see more detail in the shadows but its hard to see it in the smaller size. 

On that note I will agree with grapnell in the fact that there is SOME loss in detail some of the shadows even in the larger size in flickr. However with that said it needs to be this way other wise you would not see the depth of the branches! IF all the branches had more detail it would look very flat and would look like a mess.

So the use of contrast here did really work with this shot. The ONLY part I would adjust to bring some detail back in the shadow is the furthest tree near the bottom of the trunk as that is just way to dark and I know if you were there you would not see complete black.

Great job nonetheless.


----------



## grapnell (May 15, 2012)

OP, would you be interested in posting the raws?


----------



## bs0604 (May 15, 2012)

Grapnell asked for the raws. 



branchesorig-2 by bs0604, on Flickr





branchesorig by bs0604, on Flickr




branchesorig-3 by bs0604, on Flickr


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 15, 2012)

Here's my take at it. Thoughts?

View attachment 8662


----------



## vipgraphx (May 15, 2012)

Do you see in HughGuessWho's version he has lighten the shadow areas and you can see more detail but, what has happened is that all those branches in have now become hard on the eye and just all blends in and looses depth. 

This is what i was talking about why in bs0604's version the darker shadow worked well because its not as hard on your eyes and has more depth.

Sometimes you have to do what the eye says and not what reality is supposed to be like because truth is there is color in shadow. shadows are really never completely black unless you are in space.


----------



## bs0604 (May 15, 2012)

The greens in Hugh's version seem a little overcooked to me.


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 15, 2012)

Any better?

View attachment 8663


----------



## bs0604 (May 15, 2012)

The tree leaves look great but the grass is too yellow


----------



## EDL (May 15, 2012)

Here's my crack at it:


----------



## vipgraphx (May 16, 2012)

I still vote that OP's works best.


----------



## Bynx (May 16, 2012)

Here is my take on it. While edl's colors were off, the range he uncovered was the best.


----------



## HughGuessWho (May 16, 2012)

Bynx said:
			
		

> Here is my take on it. While edl's colors were off, the range he uncovered was the best.



Damn. I will get it one of these days.


----------



## Bynx (May 16, 2012)

Hugh, I just took Edl's pic and reduced the yellow. Thats all.


----------

