# Shot from North California



## Majeed Badizadegan (Dec 16, 2011)

This is an HDR taken in Arnold, california:

Critique away


----------



## Bynx (Dec 16, 2011)

I would say you didnt take enough underexposed shots to get some more detail in the sky. Other than that the composition looks like its a part of something larger, thus looking like we are missing something. I like whats there.


----------



## COLTSFANATIC1 (Dec 16, 2011)

what he ^ said


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Dec 16, 2011)

Bynx said:


> I would say you didnt take enough underexposed shots to get some more detail in the sky.



Unfortunately my exposure bias is limited to -2 through +2. So I hit the hardware ceiling here. 



Bynx said:


> Other than that the composition looks like its a part of something larger, thus looking like we are missing something. I like whats there.



I took this into account, and tried this crop. Do you think it helps?


----------



## Bynx (Dec 17, 2011)

You shouldnt be limited to the auto bracketing. Try doing it manually then you can take as many shots as you want. After you have your 0EV then just click back 12 times so you will be 4 stops under (each 3 clicks is 1fstop) then reverse, 3 clicks at a time for 1 stop EVs until you are 4 stops over. Total of 24 clicks. You will now have 9 shots for HDR.


----------



## wmccree (Dec 17, 2011)

^ what he said on more bracketing.  You can take a lot jut make the adjustments between sets.  

I like the shot though.  One thing I've learned as well, meter for the sky as a starting point.  It's helped me out a lot on landscape pics.


----------



## Bynx (Dec 17, 2011)

Good point wmccree. The sky is a lot brighter than the ground is darker so the 0EV should be more to the underexposed than the overexposed scale.


----------



## GreatPhotoRace (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree with the bracketing comments. Personally, I'm not crazy about the composition. I don't think it's bad, but it's not exactly "there" yet.  I understand why you wanted to show that much of the water, and I think you should leave it in, but I also don't think you should crop out the sky. I think the shot needs to be wider. My eye would travel better.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 18, 2011)

The second composition is better than the first and represents a so-called "mirror lake" composition, where the idea is to place the shoreline in the middle of the frame and have the reflection on the water mirror the image on the top.  I agree with the comments about exposure.  The highlights in both the red and green channels are blocked, so additional exposures were necessary.  Fortunately, all the shadows have been revealed.  The problem is in the sky on the upper left, which can be handled with some corner burning.  It looks to me as though the saturation got cranked up before the contrast got corrected.  That's the source of the fluorescent greens.  Beyond correcting that, the challenge is to separate the highlights in the trees along the water from the trees in the background, particularly the left-hand tree.  Once you do all that, you get a very pleasant image.


----------



## Iam4StL (Dec 18, 2011)

Beautiful colors and reflections.  Very nice.


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 18, 2011)

I really like the photo, no offense but it looks like it lacks something. It seems like it does not have to much processing which sometime is good or bad depending on how you like it. I wanted to give some warmth and a little more tone.

I edited the picture as I noticed you did not put any rules on if it was not ok to edit pictures. If I cross the line please let me know and I will delete it.

Here is my take.



Reflectionsv3 by VIPGraphX, on Flickr


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Dec 19, 2011)

vipgraphx said:


> I really like the photo, no offense but it looks like it lacks something. It seems like it does not have to much processing which sometime is good or bad depending on how you like it. I wanted to give some warmth and a little more tone.
> 
> I edited the picture as I noticed you did not put any rules on if it was not ok to edit pictures. If I cross the line please let me know and I will delete it.
> 
> ...



Although I don't like the Orange-ish and warm casts from this particular version, it opened my eyes to the fact that the image could definitely improve from some tone mapping. I took a couple minutes and rendered this version:






vs the original:





I pushed the blacks and worked on getting the trees top pop a bit more


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

do you have any dedicated noise reduction software? I know you dont like the colors in my image but look at how smooth the water is..maybe you can incorporate something like that and I was actually thinking taking some green down and giving it some yellow. It starting to look flourescent , where is my black light? Also look at the trees bark/trunk i see a lot of blue tone in there.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Dec 19, 2011)

vipgraphx said:
			
		

> do you have any dedicated noise reduction software? I know you dont like the colors in my image but look at how smooth the water is..maybe you can incorporate something like that and I was actually thinking taking some green down and giving it some yellow. It starting to look flourescent , where is my black light? Also look at the trees bark/trunk i see a lot of blue tone in there.



I agree it needs some selective editing and NR. It was a quick edit, the water on yours looks good. I just use cs5 and sometimes topaz denoise. Nothing dedicated any recommendation?


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

There is an odd blue cast in the shadows, which I edited out using HSL curved, though most editors do not have this feature. Try hue/sat on an adjustment layer?


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 19, 2011)




----------



## Bynx (Dec 19, 2011)

That might look really nice if printed on canvas.


----------



## SlickSalmon (Dec 19, 2011)

Bynx said:


> That might look really nice if printed on canvas.



It prints beautifully on watercolor paper.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 19, 2011)

SlickSalmon said:


> Bynx said:
> 
> 
> > That might look really nice if printed on canvas.
> ...



imagine if it actually were a painting!


----------



## vipgraphx (Dec 19, 2011)

if it was a water color it would be a very dark water color. Not to crazy how the latest image has color separation with distinctive lines. I do like the horizontal flip and the crop though.


----------



## MatteoSaeed (Dec 22, 2011)

i like it, but I wouldn't say its HDR !


----------

