# HDR of rock quarry, waterfall and bridge in a local state park!  C&C welcome



## pab (Nov 15, 2012)

Here are a few shots I took yesterday.  Not all of them are as heavy as others.  Most were taken with 3 different exposures.

Sorry for the overload of photos, hopefully some are liked!







The thing I do not like about this photo is the dark blotch in the upper middle/right corner.  I was using a neutralizer filter, and I 
think that it was too dark.  I should have spun it towards the bottom or taken it off all together.




I really liked the composition of this one, it felt like it was just melting over the rocks.  It was nice to be able to post up on the large rocks 
about 15 or 20 feet away over the water.  I did not want to shoot it straight on, so I used this angle...





A creepy environment down there, the colors were all basically monotone looking and it was hard to capture the true colors as there was basically
no sunlight at the time of the shoot.





Though I normally do not capture still water, I really liked the reflection.  










This one has no HDR processing to it, but still like it.  Just a raw shot with a slight adjustment or two.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

1 is a bit strong on the color. I think I'd crop a slight bit off the right and top. Beautiful.
2is really busy. The dark burn in the sky is really drawing the eye. 
3. I love. I find myself tilting my head to the right a bit. I'd crop a bit of the left on this one to have your waterfall leading from top left to bottom right more.
4. I got nothing. Sorry. It's busy and I find myself wondering why? 
5. I love the reflections on the left, but I am having a hard time loving the image. the trees are just too high frequency in this. 
6. the framing is awkward and doesn't balance. I want to love it, but... 
7. I like it without the HDR processing too! Still want to crop some off the left.


----------



## pab (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks for all the comments.   I plan on going back to the drawing board and reprocessing them to to a less extensive amount of HDR.  I think the busyness is coming from it.   The original NEF files look a lot less busy, and the mirror effect is not so dramatic.   

Thanks again!


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 15, 2012)

pab said:


> Thanks for all the comments.   I plan on going back to the drawing board and reprocessing them to to a less extensive amount of HDR.  I think the busyness is coming from it.   The original NEF files look a lot less busy, and the mirror effect is not so dramatic.
> 
> Thanks again!


I am not a big fan of poorly done HDR at all and these are definitely not bad or over done at all! 
They're high frequency images and sharpening, definining and accentuating the trees is always going to result in really busy. Not sure how you'd fix that, but I'll keep an eye out to see how you do!


----------



## HughGuessWho (Nov 15, 2012)

The processing looks good on all of them (#1 may be a little over the top on saturation), but compositionally, none really do anything for me. There is no real subject except for maybe #2 & #7.

I really kind of like # 2 for some reason. I think it is the best of the bunch. Leading lines are nice.  I do think it needs a little more contrast, but that&#8217;s just my opinion.

Keep shootin&#8217;

View attachment 25774


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 16, 2012)

If you could dial back the saturation in #1, that would be a damn impressive image...


----------



## fractionofasecond (Nov 16, 2012)

These are just about in the middle between "cartoonish" and natural.  They are gorgeous.    Nice job!  No. 1 is my favorite.


----------



## pab (Nov 16, 2012)

Thank you folks.   

Couple of side notes. This was my first time ever shooting waterfalls , or moving water for that matter.   I have only done about 3 or 4 HDR photos previous to this and I only had this camera for a week.  Been a hobby for a long time but never real serious.

   If I email someone the photos I used would they mind re doing it?

I have the NEF and JPEG versions.   Would really like to see what others can do with it.    Thanks!

Eric


----------



## pab (Nov 16, 2012)

I toned it down a tiny bit.  Also did a little more cropping and removed some weird green orb in the middle of the original.

Is this easier on the eye?





Here is an EVEN more TONED down veriosn.











*This one below is the ORIGINAL *


----------



## eswebster (Nov 25, 2012)

the saturation in 1 with a bit of darkening of the highlights and you have it i think.  Solid shot.


----------



## The Barbarian (Nov 26, 2012)

I like No. 2 best.   Even though the water is spectacular in your other shots, I like the calm, introspective look of 2.


----------



## 8thsinner (Jan 25, 2013)

I like 2 and 3, and your repost i like the composition more on the second one. 

Doing the right thing is bleeding for the cause


----------



## pab (Jan 26, 2013)

The Barbarian said:


> I like No. 2 best.   Even though the water is spectacular in your other shots, I like the calm, introspective look of 2.



Thanks!  


8thsinner said:


> I like 2 and 3, and your repost i like the composition more on the second one.
> 
> Doing the right thing is bleeding for the cause


I agree thank you for the critique



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## kylesfreelance (Jan 26, 2013)

3 through 6 I like.  Overall I love 3.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 26, 2013)

The original #1 is a little hot on the processing, as has been noted, but I *do* like the way it emphasizes the similarity in shape and line between the moss above and the water flowing below.


----------



## dmunsie (Jan 26, 2013)

I like them all, but especially like #1, but I'm a fan of heavy sat and love vibrant colors.  If you don't mind, what shutter speed did you use to capture the running water in #1? And I guess you had 3 different speeds for HDR processing? Thx.


----------



## pab (Jan 28, 2013)

dmunsie said:


> I like them all, but especially like #1, but I'm a fan of heavy sat and love vibrant colors.  If you don't mind, what shutter speed did you use to capture the running water in #1? And I guess you had 3 different speeds for HDR processing? Thx.



Thats a good question.  I believe it was 1.5 seconds at 0.0 exp.   And it auto adjusted accordingly based off of the Aperture mode.

I did however use 0.0 -1,-2 +1,+2 so there would be several different motions of the water.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------

