# New HDR C&C Please



## fractionofasecond (Nov 5, 2012)

HDR I took today at my work using different exposure times.  Feel free to edit. C&C welcome. Thanks!




ISO 100.  4 images with different exposure times.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 5, 2012)

pretty nice if  you like the cartoony saturation. I think it looks nice. some HDR people are more for the "realistic" look.  I think the saturation works well for this photo though.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 5, 2012)

Thanks, I dont think I overcooked it too much so I think it works.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 5, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> Thanks, I dont think I overcooked it too much so I think it works.



"too much" is mostly a matter of opinion. i like it so..take that for whatever its worth. :mrgreen:


----------



## rgregory1965 (Nov 5, 2012)

Got a little sensor dirt on the sky....easy to rmove in lightroom


----------



## FanBoy (Nov 5, 2012)

I prefer the more conservative approach.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 5, 2012)

I noticed that after, will touch that up for sure.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 5, 2012)

yeah. this is the very definition of overcooked. i'm not sure how you could conclude that it isn't.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> yeah. this is the very definition of overcooked. i'm not sure how you could conclude that it isn't.



Why?  Because you can see details in the buildings?  The buildings  have a grunge effect due to the age of them and I was going for a look where you could see that detail.  By overcooked, I mean it is not "over-saturated", and it is definitely not.  It does not hurt my eyes to look at and I do not see any color in the photo that looks too green, or too red.  Overcooked means what to you because I am not seeing the same thing you are.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 5, 2012)

because there are virtually no shadows and plenty of halo go around.


----------



## theraven (Nov 6, 2012)

I like it, it is very slightly over, I think add a bit of contrast maybe, but I like it.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks,  I don't seem to see any halo around anywhere.  Thanks for the advice everyone.


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 6, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> Thanks, I dont think I overcooked it too much so I think it works.



Really?  It looks like a cartoon.  I'm not necessarily saying that's bad.  It is not a style that I prefer but there are many who do.

But be realistic.  It in no way looks natural.  There are absolutely no depth cues.  I have no idea where the light is coming from.


----------



## cgipson1 (Nov 6, 2012)

Way overcooked... very cartoonish! Looks like a colored pencil drawing, not a photograph.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 6, 2012)

Well I went crazy with it I guess


----------



## BluePhotoFrog (Nov 6, 2012)

It might help if we could see some of the source photos.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> Thanks,  I don't seem to see any halo around anywhere.



That's because you seem to have an emotional attachment to the image. The halos aren't severe, but they are very present.


----------



## Tuffythepug (Nov 6, 2012)

I think it's reasonable to assume this type of image is an acquired taste.  It's not going to appeal to photography purists.   It is interesting in it's own way.  Not necessarily my cup of tea but there's room for all approaches.   I agree with others who feel it doesn't really look like a photograph;  more like a colored pencil drawing in my view.    Ever since the photographic community began using computers to process digital photos there's been a trend towards making photos look like something else.  Very few people are interested in simply making traditionally accepted "good photos" any more.   But I think images are images and art is art and it doesn't matter so much how you got there; the important thing is what you end up with.


----------



## amolitor (Nov 6, 2012)

I don't much LIKE it, but it's definitely a thing! This strikes me as a pretty good technical example of a pretty extreme style, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The question is, what are you trying to say here? Is this just a technical exercise? If so, great. If not, if you're trying to make a photograph that evokes something, that captures something, that communicates something, then what is it about the way you've handled this that supports or conflicts with that goal?

As a photograph, it doesn't strike me as much of anything. It's just some big house someplace. I am always willing to allow that I am missing something, though!


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks for the comments everyone.  It is a actually a 5 star restaurant, as though it may appear to be a house.  The surrounding buildings near the door are offices.  Appreciate the feedback.  I normally like the "natural look" to an HDR but I guess i pushed this one a little more to the extreme.  I guess it depends on your style, but I think some "cartoonish" photos can add some interest to a picture.


----------



## ronlane (Nov 6, 2012)

amolitor said:


> As a photograph, it doesn't strike me as much of anything. It's just some big house someplace. I am always willing to allow that I am missing something, though!



I will agree with amolitor on this part. My reasoning, is that it looks more like a painting than a photograph. If this was your intent, then you nailed it, but not so much as an HDR photo to me.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

That's the thing I guess. This image does not reflect the way that light actually behaves. It's a _representation_ of high dynamic range. Though I suppose you could say the same about IR/UV and, in particular, wideband photography...

But seriously people. Can't you see those halos around the roof, in particular the chimney?


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> That's the thing I guess. This image does not reflect the way that light actually behaves. It's a _representation_ of high dynamic range. Though I suppose you could say the same about IR/UV and, in particular, wideband photography...
> 
> But seriously people. Can't you see those halos around the roof, in particular the chimney?



You can blame that on my finger pressing the "surreal" light option in photomatix.  "Let me just try it, it might look good."  And then you end up keeping it lol.  I will try another one later with a more natural look and post that here.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

fractionofasecond said:


> You can blame that on my finger pressing the "surreal" light option in photomatix.  "Let me just try it, it might look good."



please tell me that this is sarcasm. PLEASE.


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> fractionofasecond said:
> 
> 
> > You can blame that on my finger pressing the "surreal" light option in photomatix. "Let me just try it, it might look good."
> ...



please tell me you have a sense of humor, or a personality.  PLEASE.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

lol. you're new around here.


----------



## theraven (Nov 6, 2012)

unpopular said:


> lol. you're new around here.



So he hasn't become a tosser yet? :lmao:


----------



## unpopular (Nov 6, 2012)

he hasn't yet seen the wrath of my snark!


----------

