# Mustang HDR near a lake



## pab (Nov 7, 2012)

Thought I would put this up, 5 different exposures.   I know it looks a little over done but I like it.







Same picture just tapatalk hosted for easy viewing


----------



## Josefsteyn (Nov 7, 2012)

This is clearly a HDR, but I like it too. Nice and sharp front to back.


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 7, 2012)

not good


----------



## pab (Nov 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> not good



No likey??


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> not good



I love insightful comments like that.

What's "not good" about it?


----------



## thetrue (Nov 7, 2012)

A bit cartoony for me, but still nice


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Nov 7, 2012)

I like your treatment here. It is far more tonemapped than I prefer, but it's still nice. 

The only CC I'd offer is that you need to keep the horizon level unless you have some artistic reason for tilting it. Also, your sky needs a lot of work. There's some ghosting in some areas, and it has a lot more dark / spooky qualities than I imagine you were going for...


----------



## thetrue (Nov 7, 2012)

I actually kind of like the spookiness of the sky, it kind of brings the sky in to the image, being close in color to the mustang.


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 7, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > not good
> ...



Where's your insightful comment?



Steve5D said:


> What's "not good" about it?



All the sliders were maxed out.  It seems as if this isn't even HDR but rather a tone-mapped single exposure instead.  HDR would have brought out at least some detail in the shadows in the trees.  I'm guessing the highlights weren't a problem because of the heavy clouds.


----------



## PlanetStarbucks (Nov 7, 2012)

MJ, I think as a general rule of civility if you say something isn't good you should elaborate a little bit on it.  Otherwise you're just flaming.

For me, I like the processing.  It's that heavy, slightly over the top that is unabashedly tone mapped and I tend to like that look on cars.  I like it because it make you look at the car in a very different way, and you see things you don't see otherwise.  I think the location could be better, but overall I like the work.


----------



## Parker219 (Nov 7, 2012)

Um, I think the location is one of the best things about this picture.  So I guess you have another opinion to consider..haha.  The processing works with this picture, obviously you were going for a certain look and you pulled it off nicely!  :thumbup:


----------



## pab (Nov 7, 2012)

Parker219 said:


> Um, I think the location is one of the best things about this picture.  So I guess you have another opinion to consider..haha.  The processing works with this picture, obviously you were going for a certain look and you pulled it off nicely!  :thumbup:



Thank you.


----------



## FanBoy (Nov 7, 2012)

I can tolerate the more heavy processing in an image like this when the subject is a car. The car's emphasis, however, begins to erode from the busy ramp it's parked on.


----------



## Mully (Nov 7, 2012)

I am not a fan of heavy HDR processing but there is something captivating about this image.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



I believe the image could be straightened out and, as someone else mentioned, the ramp seems a bit busy for my taste. All in all I give it about a 7 out of 10...



> All the sliders were maxed out.  It seems as if this isn't even HDR but rather a tone-mapped single exposure instead.  HDR would have brought out at least some detail in the shadows in the trees.  I'm guessing the highlights weren't a problem because of the heavy clouds.



"It seems"? Well, it might seem like that. Then again, he clearly stated that it was five images. Maybe you could've commented on that? Like PLanetStarbucks said, as a matter of civility you should offer up some critique if you think something isn't good. "Not good" could easily mean you think the image is "amazingly great"...


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 7, 2012)

Steve5D said:


> > All the sliders were maxed out.  It seems as if this isn't even HDR but rather a tone-mapped single exposure instead.  HDR would have brought out at least some detail in the shadows in the trees.  I'm guessing the highlights weren't a problem because of the heavy clouds.
> 
> 
> 
> "It seems"? Well, it might seem like that. Then again, he clearly stated that it was five images. Maybe you could've commented on that? Like PLanetStarbucks said, as a matter of civility you should offer up some critique if you think something isn't good. "Not good" could easily mean you think the image is "amazingly great"...



Yes it "seems"... I say that because it is an image and I wasn't standing over his shoulder as this was produced.  Are you one of these fellas that likes to get tangled up in semantics games or something?  What about him stating that 5 images was used would warrant a comment?  As I said, if it was supposed to be an HDR, I would think that the shadows in the trees and car grille would have detail as those seem to be the only areas where the DR of a single exposure wouldn't be adequate.  Otherwise, tonemapping a single exposure would accomplish the same thing.

I probably should have just said "It's excellent put it in a gallery!"


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Are you one of these fellas that likes to get tangled up in semantics games or something?



No, I'm one of those people who believe that it's kinda' pointless to post things like "Not good" without pointing out _why _it's not good...


----------



## pab (Nov 7, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > > All the sliders were maxed out.  It seems as if this isn't even HDR but rather a tone-mapped single exposure instead.  HDR would have brought out at least some detail in the shadows in the trees.  I'm guessing the highlights weren't a problem because of the heavy clouds.
> ...



I rent a small building downtown.  If I post up more pictures can you advise me on which other ones I should put in my gallery??   LoL


I kid..  I kid


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 7, 2012)

pab said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



THANK YOU!  I'm so glad to see someone with a sense of humor and that doesn't get all butt hurt if someone disagrees or happens to dislike one of their photos.  Most people that post on here looking for critique, it "seems", are just looking for 'yes' men and for everyone to tell them their s#it don't stink.  It's refreshing really.  BTW, the overcooked look just isn't my cup of tea.  Some people like it, some don't... I just happen to be one of the ones that don't.


----------



## pab (Nov 7, 2012)

It's all good.   My meds keep me from feeling emotions .   I am here on this site for the follow reasons 
1) to learn
2) to have fun
3) to share my photos, get some c&c 

I guess above all I enjoyed the photo.  It was done originally in a very toned down version.   But because of the color  of the cars actual paint (sterling gray metallic) over doing it pulled a really cool chromatic look out of the paint making it look reflective.  

Thanks again, all opinions are welcome


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 7, 2012)

pab said:


> It's all good.   My meds keep me from feeling emotions .   I am here on this site for the follow reasons
> 1) to learn
> 2) to have fun
> 3) to share my photos, get some c&c
> ...



If you only like the way the car turned out in it, why not try using the magnetic laso tool to create a new layer of only the car and put a less 'cooked' version of the rest of the scene behind it?  Then you get the look of the car you like with a more realistic background.


----------

