# 4 HDR Covered Bridges near Fredericton NB



## PasqualettoM




----------



## baturn

Very cool images!


----------



## PasqualettoM

Thanks!


----------



## scotts2014se

I like the third one. But I'd work on the haloing.


----------



## pixmedic

are these actual HDR images made with multiple exposure shots or just one very tone mapped image?


----------



## PasqualettoM

@pixmedic they are actual HDR but still hyper toned. Each is comprised of a minimum of 3 images one or two have up to 5 images 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## smoke665

scotts2014se said:


> I like the third one. But I'd work on the haloing.



Or is it ghosting? I know these are winter scenes but they seem to blue. Maybe adjust the WB warmer, and bump the exposure up.


----------



## Light Guru

Im sorry but they are horribly processed.


----------



## fstr n u

I agree....HDR photos should have a greater emphasis on "realism" than these. When you have time, play with your post-exposure settings to find different results than what you've ended up with.  Play with the software and have fun learning.


----------



## john.margetts

Not sure why any picture should have an emphasis on realism. Where would Man Ray be with realism? Go with your vision, young man.

On the other hand, these are certainly not to my taste. They are too dark, for one thing. If you are going to create hyperdetail, let's see that hyperdetail.


----------



## Timppa

john.margetts said:


> Not sure why any picture should have an emphasis on realism. Where would Man Ray be with realism? Go with your vision, young man.



Fully agree.
Pictures do remind me of my first HDR pictures I made, I felt to always put the sliders to the extreems, creating this kind of effect. Now I learned not to with (for me) better outcomes.


----------



## Braineack

john.margetts said:


> Not sure why any picture should have an emphasis on realism. Where would Man Ray be with realism? Go with your vision, young man.



They don't.

But they should at least have some emphasis AWAY from "I tossed this image in a free version I got of photodex and this is what horrible result I got"

These are not the vision of the OP, this is processing in the name of junk processing, for the sake of junk processing, under the guise of HDR.

They are all very straight forward shots of a covered bridge, processed in a way that detracts from the image in all regards.  So much so that there is no remaining redeeming value left in these images.


----------



## john.margetts

Braineack said:


> These are not the vision of the OP, this is processing in the name of junk processing, for the sake of junk processing, under the guise of HDR.
> 
> They are all very straight forward shots of a covered bridge, processed in a way that detracts from the image in all regards.  So much so that there is no remaining redeeming value left in these images.


and how do you know the vision of the photographer? To go back to Man Ray, many of his contemporaries just saw amateurish development of his prints with no redeeming value. Now he is appreciated as an innovative genius. Appreciation of creative genius frequently involves seeing past taught standards.



Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## smoke665

john.margetts said:


> Appreciation of creative genius frequently involves seeing past taught standards.



No disrespect intended on your views on creativity, but in this particular case, IMO I think @Braineack hit the nail on the head with his comment _"They are all very straight forward shots of a covered bridge, processed in a way that detracts from the image in all regards. So much so that there is no remaining redeeming value left in these images._"


----------



## Braineack

john.margetts said:


> and how do you know the vision of the photographer? To go back to Man Ray, many of his contemporaries just saw amateurish development of his prints with no redeeming value. Now he is appreciated as an innovative genius. Appreciation of creative genius frequently involves seeing past taught standards.



The problem here is the photographer had no vision...at least in terms of the processing.

there is no creative genius in poorly processing photos like a high school student in 1999.


----------



## john.margetts

smoke665 said:


> No disrespect intended on your views on creativity, but in this particular case, IMO I think @Braineack hit the nail on the head with his comment _"They are all very straight forward shots of a covered bridge, processed in a way that detracts from the image in all regards. So much so that there is no remaining redeeming value left in these images._"





Braineack said:


> The problem here is the photographer had no vision...at least in terms of the processing.
> 
> there is no creative genius in poorly processing photos like a high school student in 1999.


Personally, I have never thought enough of my own opinion as to want to tell someone that their work is irredeemable rubbish. Saying that you do not like it is fair enough (I said that), but that is entirely dependant on what you have been taught is value. There is no absolute measure of value beyond your opinion.


----------



## PasqualettoM

My My we have a number of self entitled folks in here on this post.

I have read many a thread on the forum and am well prepared for feedback and critique but the nail was actually hit on the head when it was stated by @john.margetts how do any of you know MY vision?

John was respectful in saying, "hey these look like $h!t to me" and did not venture to assume what MY end goal was. In fact for those who feel like they can assume what I run for software or hardware my end goal was what I have posted, I intended for them to be toned all to hell. The sliders are not actually at max, and barring the haloing are exactly what was intended to be created before the 3 hours was spent travelling around capturing these shots.

Which is exactly why there were multiple exposures. 

The haloing was not removed simply because I didn't feel like spending the added time in post on something I was playing with from a day of fun shooting.

Give critique, pick apart the images to the nines but do not think you know anything about what my creative vision was or if I just jumped out of the box with free software and though I was king of the hill. 

The shots were mid day, overcast and flat beyond belief, light rain at times... not a day I would have chose to shoot normally. Which is why I elected to create something so different compared to what most would like. 

What was more important to me though, was spending the day with my 11 year old son, having a few laughs and introducing him to one of my hobbies and passions. 

My apologies that there is someone out here willing to break the rules of what you consider to be the required outcome of images. I personally see photography as not just a cash cow but also an artistic outlet. 

Not everyone is going to agree with your vision, and I certainly respect those that oppose mine. Not so much a fan of anyone speaking for what I intended however.


----------



## Braineack

the lack of effort in the processing shone through...


----------



## PasqualettoM

Braineack, I have yet to read a single post you have made which was not demeaning to someone.

We will have to agree to disagree as our views are so very different. 

I appreciate your feedback that my images are not to your taste. 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack

That's fine, but if you want critique, read my posts, and actually take from them.

While you may not have "just jumped out of the box with free software and though[t] I was king of the hill,"  that's what the processing of these convey.


----------



## PasqualettoM

And that I can certainly take as valued critique! 

As most I am on here to learn, re-learn and gather knowledge. The approach taken by some members(not speaking directly of yourself) seems to be to alienate anyone they don't deem a "professional" 

There are times where I choose to go off the tracks with my processing for the sake of having fun with it. While this was one of those times I was and am still seeking the critique but constructive critique works better than seeing someone put down a person based on a post. (Again not stating what your aim or goal was) 

I do for the record take what I believe to be the point or advice from your posts, it's sometimes difficult to weed past the way it's presented. But maybe that's a me problem 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## Braineack

im not always the most tactful


----------



## jcdeboever

I know nothing about HDR or even where to start and try it. I am not a fan of most of the images processed in this manner. 

However, creative expression is what I can appreciate. IMO, do what you want and if you like them, that's all that matters. 

IMO, Covered bridges are very scarce today and offer historical attributes, I would present them as they stand, with unique fields of view to capture their natural qualities. People debated hard to keep them from being removed.


----------



## PasqualettoM

Believe me my goal this summer is to capture each covered bridge in New Brunswick as they stand. With the state of the snow being knee deep and the river/creek ice not being safe for access I was limited to a few less than creative views. Especially with the young fella with me, that being said the true beauty of these bridges will be brought to light as soon as we start getting a bit better weather 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## smoke665

PasqualettoM said:


> Not everyone is going to agree with your vision, and I certainly respect those that oppose mine.



I really need to start looking at the little things more. I overlooked the link to your website earlier. This morning I went to it. First of all you have a clean looking layout that is easy on the eye, and navigation is straight forward. Most important you have some really nice images. I did notice in your section titled HDR that all of those images were heavily processed. While my personal opinion is that some of those would have been better with less heavy handed processing, as the artist your opinion is the only one that matters, and if you're happy with them so be it. One thing I did notice is a few of them had the same halos that your bridge shots had. According to your earlier post the halo on the bridges was there because you "didn't feel like spending time post to remove" .  So now I'm slightly confused as to why you didn't take the time to remove the halos from the ones on your website site. As I said earlier you have some really nice images on the site, that these just don't seem to fit with?


----------



## PasqualettoM

A valid point the HDR images posted all come from the same day. It's an album which really shouldn't exist on the site and likely won't much longer. 

The taking the time for post on them comment referred to sitting down and determining my best method for removing the Halo. I do personally like the over processing as I find it makes it stand out far from the norm. 

Thank you for the feedback on the website it truly is appreciated 


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## smoke665

PasqualettoM said:


> Thank you for the feedback on the website it truly is appreciated



No problem. I suspect that the halo is coming from something in the heavy processing, maybe an accentuation of ghosting. If you are using LR or PS I would highly recommend downloading the NIK Collection it's free and has a plug in for both. The HDR flexibility is great.


----------



## Tim Tucker 2

An honest critique.

I've just seen these and will give my honest opinion.

With colour, these images may have been shot on a dull day, but you can't tell so little of the image is left for the viewer to see. With the colour they have all been reduced to two main colours, a dark de-saturated cyan/blue, and a dark brown/dark yellow. These are pretty much the only colours apart from blacks in the images.

The colours themselves do not work together and certainly don't work together when they are presented at the same luminosity. The river is reduced to the look of a sewer, the sky and snow the same leaden grey.

With luminosity, they are all, (apart form one slightly lighter one), comprised of shadow values with very little variation in luminosity. In fact with the darker three the only real contrast in luminosity and the only values that get above mid-grey in luminosity are the halos.

The main tools of a photographer are visual, that is you paint with a palette of hue, luminosity and saturation. But I do not see any understanding of either colour or luminosity here, on fact I see the opposite, a complete lack of understanding.

I find the colours hideous together compounded by reducing the luminosity of each, (of the two colours), until there is little separation. You may certainly break the rules, you may certainly do things differently. But you must accept that with any image you are expressing your vision by presenting an image that will be interpreted by the _viewer_ to _their_ understanding. You are not presenting _your_ understanding of what you think they should be, what you imagine them to be, or how you think a viewer should see them. To be frank in the universal language of images the message is loud, clear and unmistakable.

My personal view is that if these are the vision then the statement is one of a repulsive nature, certainly not attractive. Fetid and rotten, certainly not a place I would be without holding my nose, such is my impression. Sorry, but as I said, an honest critique.


----------

