# Sunset on the lake



## theraven (Dec 9, 2012)

C&C welcome 




Westport Lake HDR by ravenphotography2012, on Flickr


----------



## Parker219 (Dec 9, 2012)

IMO, its an okay shot, not wall worthy, but okay. Seems to be a little soft and lacking detail.


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 9, 2012)

This does not seem to be HDR to me.  I would think that those trees would be getting light reflected on them from the pond in the foreground.  While the clouds in the sky look nice, the rest of the photo looks under-exposed.  While this isn't the best as I had to use a fake HDR method considering I only had access to one of the exposures (the one you posted), I hope you will see what to shoot for in future HDR shots.


----------



## theraven (Dec 10, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> This does not seem to be HDR to me.  I would think that those trees would be getting light reflected on them from the pond in the foreground.  While the clouds in the sky look nice, the rest of the photo looks under-exposed.  While this isn't the best as I had to use a fake HDR method considering I only had access to one of the exposures (the one you posted), I hope you will see what to shoot for in future HDR shots.
> 
> View attachment 28008



I understand where you are coming from, but as the sun was going down, I didn't feel it was realistic to have every single detail. I used HDR for the detail in the water I didn't want the trees that bright, I was looking for a dusky feeling.


----------



## Parker219 (Dec 10, 2012)

Op- that may have been what you were going for, but Agentdrex made a good edit. I certainly like it better than the original.  However I guess it is a matter of personal preference.


----------



## theraven (Dec 10, 2012)

Certainly is a good edit, it just looks to pale for me.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 10, 2012)

It is a pretty picture, but I agree with Parker, not "wall worthy". It's actually the kind of photo I take a lot of. Sorry to bring you down to my level. :meh:

Drex's edit just about makes it wall worthy. I like it a lot. I generally don't care much for HDR, but this gives it almost a painting quality. 
In all fairness to Raven, I'm sure this is NOT what she saw that day.


----------



## theraven (Dec 10, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> It is a pretty picture, but I agree with Parker, not "wall worthy". It's actually the kind of photo I take a lot of. Sorry to bring you down to my level. :meh:
> 
> Drex's edit just about makes it wall worthy. I like it a lot. I generally don't care much for HDR, but this gives it almost a painting quality.
> In all fairness to Raven, I'm sure this is NOT what she saw that day.



This is true, I am trying to recreate what I saw. Difficult to get that across in a picture though!


----------



## FanBoy (Dec 10, 2012)

I was impressed with the OP's original. It contains nice color but lacks a focal point. The birds on the distant shoreline are too small and insignificant.

The edit looks washed out and unrealistic.


----------



## theraven (Dec 11, 2012)

FanBoy said:


> I was impressed with the OP's original. It contains nice color but lacks a focal point. The birds on the distant shoreline are too small and insignificant.
> 
> The edit looks washed out and unrealistic.



I agree with the focal point, I wish there was something in the water or the shore line was more interesting, I wanted to capture the colour on the water.


----------



## Red_John (Dec 16, 2012)

I mean, HDR is not only about what she saw or not that day. I love the picture. And it's great. Actually I'm starting to become addicted to your HDR photography. Nobody knows if you saw the landscape that way or not. When you convert an HDR photography to black and white, I'm sure she doesn't see the landscape only in black and white.. I don't even think that is a valid argument. Also, nowadays everyone uses photoshop or lightroom to manipulate the whole photo or just a few part of the photo, and also correct prespective and lens correction etc.. So what is the problem? The important thing in my opinion is that the photo looks beautiful to our eyes, and not fake. And this picture is not with that psychadelic look that looks terrible. I think the photo is very nice. Congratulations again


----------



## Red_John (Dec 16, 2012)

I don't agree fanboy..


----------



## FanBoy (Dec 16, 2012)

Red_John said:


> I don't agree fanboy..



With my view on the focal point/the edit?

I also come to like the OP's HDR work--much talent there.


----------



## Red_John (Dec 16, 2012)

I don't agree when you say it looks fake.. that's just an opinion. I think it's quite realistic actually


----------



## DGMPhotography (Dec 16, 2012)

Could you try some sharpening or definition in post? Not enough to make it obvious that it was done in post, but just enough to make the image a little sharper. It just doesn't look very focused to me. As for the HDR portion - I'm on the fence about this. I also like to use my photos to portray things as they appeared, but that's not what HDR is. The eyes do not see things in high dynamic range, we have to focus in on certain things to see them more clearly. I'm sure if you focused directly on the trees they would be exposed at *least* a little better, but that's just my noob opinion! Keep it up though, practice makes better, and you've certainly got a knack for composition, albeit, the horizon line is just a tiny bit high for me.


----------



## AgentDrex (Dec 16, 2012)

> The eyes do not see things in high dynamic range, we have to focus in on certain things to see them more clearly.


What???  They don't?  Isn't that the point to HDR, to make an image closer to what we CAN see with our eyes as compared to what the camera can capture in one exposure?

*Human Eye* from Wikipedia

The human eye can perceive scenes with a very high dynamic contrast ratio, around 1,000,000:1. Adaptation is achieved in part through adjustments of the iris and slow chemical changes, which take some time (e.g. the delay in being able to see when switching from bright lighting to pitch darkness). At any given time, the eye's static range is smaller, around 10,000:1. However, this is still generally higher than the static range achievable by most display technology


----------



## DGMPhotography (Dec 16, 2012)

AgentDrex said:


> > The eyes do not see things in high dynamic range, we have to focus in on certain things to see them more clearly.
> 
> 
> What???  They don't?  Isn't that the point to HDR, to make an image closer to what we CAN see with our eyes as compared to what the camera can capture in one exposure?
> ...



I may not have phrased it correctly, but I know what I said. HDR is not something our eyes are used to seeing which is why the images look so odd to our eyes.


----------



## theraven (Dec 17, 2012)

DGMPhotography said:


> AgentDrex said:
> 
> 
> > > The eyes do not see things in high dynamic range, we have to focus in on certain things to see them more clearly.
> ...



I understand what you mean, you mean the over saturated florescent HDR that have no tonal range or shadow!?

True HDR is about having the same detail in high lights and low lights (shadows) as in the correctly exposed part. You don't look at a shadow at the side of a building and it's black without detail, same as you don't look at the sky and it's white with no detail.

Out eyes can hold the dynamic range for all of this, the only way we can replicate this in photo form is expose correctly for each part and merge them, which creates a HDR. 

It's the editing of the HDR that takes it beyond what you eye can see, but that's what some people like, it is all a matter of opinion.

As said above, we don't see in black and white, we also don't see milky misty water after a 1 min exposure, but we love to capture it.

think how limited you would be if you could only capture what you could see and you couldn't be creative about it?


----------



## DGMPhotography (Dec 17, 2012)

Yeah, I totally agree with that.


----------

