# Tasteful HDR? You be the judge!



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

C&C is always welcome
1




2




3


----------



## PhotoXopher (Feb 15, 2010)

I really like the first two, last one doesn't do much for me.

Second one is my favorite, really brought life to the old shack.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

What do you not like about the third one?























(it's not an HDR conversion... I just put tons of compression on the shadows to make sure everyone was paying attention lol)


----------



## PhotoXopher (Feb 15, 2010)

Sorry, I guess that would help 

There's just nothing that captures my attention and I find my eyes wandering aimlessly at the photo, rather flat.

The others have a lot of depth and really draw me in.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

cool thanks! I'll remember that when I do this in the future.


----------



## andrew99 (Feb 15, 2010)

Nice work!  I like how the colours are rich but not over the top.  The 2nd shot is really great.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

Thanks!

It's hard to find a balance between oversaturation and the grayness that sliding the gamma up a bit causes.  it's fun to try and figure this HDR stuff out though.


----------



## Goontz (Feb 15, 2010)

I'm not usually a big fan of HDR, mainly because it's usually overdone and/or done to a picture that it shouldn't be. That said, I think these were pretty well done, and I agree with everything PhotoX said.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

Thanks!  I actually went a little overboard on the first 2 compared to what I usually do just to see how far I could push it.  Nice to know that I still have some leeway.


I think the main problem with HDR is that people think of it as an "effect" rather than a tool.  I only use it to display more of a dynamic range, and not to look like a drawing or painting.


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 15, 2010)

I think you nailed the HDRs that you did.  I agree in that many people (and its fine to do, just not my style) like to over process HDRs.  I like to consider HDR are a tool to be used when the moment is proper to ensure a nicely captured image or scene.

So for the processing, really nice job.

Overall, #2 stands out as the better image IMO.  I like the contrast in colours between the red of the building and the blue of the sky.  Its also really clear.  The camera angle also helps give the image a nice 3D look, or least some sort of depth.

In contrast, what I like about #2 is totally lacking in #3.  The colours all kind of blend together making the shot bland.  Its a straight on shot, with next to no depth or interest.  All you are missing is perfectly centering the image.


----------



## Goontz (Feb 15, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> I think the main problem with HDR is that people think of it as an "effect" rather than a tool. I only use it to display more of a dynamic range, and not to look like a drawing or painting.





bigtwinky said:


> I agree in that many people (and its fine to do, just not my style) like to over process HDRs.  I like to consider HDR are a tool to be used when the moment is proper to ensure a nicely captured image or scene.



:thumbup: My feelings exactly.


----------



## Battou (Feb 15, 2010)

The images them selves are not doing much for me but the processing looks great IMHO


----------



## Vautrin (Feb 15, 2010)

I like number 2...  Number 1 the sky is very nice but the car isn't so interesting.  I think Battou said it well -- the processing to HDR is top notch but the subject matter leaves something to be desired...

Now that sky with a windswept plain, or some nice mountains, that would be very nice...


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

Actually, to the right crowd, it's a very interesting car... grocery getter that runs the quarter in a 13.3 seconds?  Yes please.

regardless, comments on the post was what I was most interested in, so thanks for the compliments!


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 15, 2010)

Great!
I love #2.
I'm intrigued by HDR.
Can you give a quick rundown explaining your process?


----------



## Invisodude (Feb 15, 2010)

New here but gotta have a first real post somewhere 

I like the first two also, I agree with everyone, most over-do HDR's, all those halo's and over saturation isn't so cool to me either. but yours look good, the first one is so clean it looks more like you used some kind of super sonic future sky filter instead of it even being an HDR  The second one to me is cooked just right for that fantasy look.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 15, 2010)

step 1. figure out something that will look cool but has too high of a dynamic range to take a normal photo of
step 2. properly expose multiple exposures for different light levels in the scene
step 3. PP each RAW file for sharpness and noise reduction then convert to jpg
step 4. import jpg files to photomatix
step 5. mess with sliders in tone mapping until the photo looks cool
step 6. process and save the resulting jpg
step 7. bring into photoshop and adjust levels, clone out ugly stuff, and generally make the photo cooler than it was before
step 8. upload to flickr for the world to see!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Feb 19, 2010)

I like 2 the best. I really like what HDR does with old cracked woods. 

#1 I like but think the sky could be toned down just a tad. It tends to take focus away from the car which I am assuming is the focus of your picture. It also screams "Doctored Photo." Thats just my personal opinion though. Overall its a great picture though.

#2 Like I said, I really like it. If anything I would say just brighten it up just a tad.

#3 just doesn't do anything for me.  I don't think there is anything that pulls me into the picture and maybe its partly the perspective that was used. Its very flat ( if that makes any sense )

Hope this was useful. Great job in my opinion.


----------



## PackingMyBags (Feb 20, 2010)

2 is the better of them. Not a fan of 1 or 3. The subjects just arent interesting enough.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Feb 20, 2010)

robertwsimpson said:


> Actually, to the right crowd, it's a very interesting car... grocery getter that runs the quarter in a 13.3 seconds? Yes please.


 
um yeah...my first thought was "sweet 3".

i agree that the 3rd looks the flattest of the 3 and i dont like seeing the fuse box or whatever that is. it makes it seem not so old and abandoned (IF thats what you were going for)

the second one is a sketchy little place huh? that dirty mattress skeeves me out. ugh. lol

i like your processing on the first 2. third doesnt seem to have gone as far.

nicely done overall! :thumbup:


----------



## 250Gimp (Feb 21, 2010)

Nice job!

I like the HDR you did!  Not too over cooked like a lot of HDR you see.  I would back down just a hair more to keep it real, but I still really like the first two.

Cheers


----------



## End Game (Feb 25, 2010)

I really like the second one the best. The first one I'm just turned off to because of personal bias against putting a car (Or at least a functional car ) into an image. To me it makes it look like a stock shot. But that aside, I think it's fine; an odd thing to HDR, but fine nonetheless. The third one IMO is just a bad photo. To me there just wasn't that...I dunno...originiality of composition. It's just a straight on shot of an unmatching blue sky and semi-dead-grass ground. With a few slabs of wood in the middle.

</rant>


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 25, 2010)

maybe you will like this one better?


----------



## End Game (Feb 25, 2010)

Ooooh yes. OooHOHoooh yes. And it has a car in it XD. Well played, mon ami. I really like the outer glow effect. Or...if it isn't outer glow, how did you do it?


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 25, 2010)

lol I think that one is way overdone.  The only reason I did it was because I thought those pipes would look cool... and they do!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Feb 25, 2010)

See, maybe its just me, I tend to love what HDR does with building materials apparently. The brick and concrete buildings look awesome.  I guess I should take up architectural photography.


----------



## robertwsimpson (Feb 26, 2010)

Yeah I like the way that it makes buildings look kind of animated.  It doesn't look much like a photograph at that point though.


----------



## JimKing (Feb 26, 2010)

bigtwinky hit my feelings pretty well. No. 2 is a clear winner. No. 1 did not strike me as an HDR image. I like the shot but not the way I like No. 2. No. 3 is nicely done but doesn't have the depth and color contrast that makes No. 2 such a grabber. I've done a few HDR shots but nothing I would want to show anyone. Your's are worth showing.


----------



## Jeremy Z (Feb 27, 2010)

I like 1 & 2. I wish I knew how to do HDRs. Is it something that is done in software with raw images?


----------



## usayit (Feb 27, 2010)

For #2, I find the halo around the roof line all too common in HDR very distracting.  

I do like the one recently posted on the 2/25th.


----------



## usayit (Feb 27, 2010)

Jeremy Z said:


> Is it something that is done in software with raw images?



From photomatrix FAQ.  Apparently, you can but they report better results if a good RAW converter is used prior and photomatrix is used with TIFF or JPGs.

Do I need to process bracketed RAW files to TIFF format first?
 	 Yes, it is recommended to first process your bracketed RAW files in your favorite RAW converter, and then combine the converted TIFF or JPEG files in Photomatix. This is particularly recommended with Exposure Fusion, given that Exposure Fusion is intended for images that have been fully processed, either in-camera or through a RAW converter.
 	 When generating an HDR image, having Photomatix directly process the RAW files is theoretically better for the accuracy of the 32-bit HDR image produced -- the data in RAW files represent the linear luminance values captured by the camera sensors, which is exactly what is needed for an HDR image. Also, the calculation of HDR values can rely on the exposure information retrieved from EXIF data when RAW files are used.
 	 However, the RAW conversion of Photomatix Pro and Photomatix Light is not as good as the RAW conversion done in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, DxO or other applications specialized in RAW conversion.
 	 This is why you should process your bracketed RAW files in an application that is specialized in the RAW conversion task. Then, use the converted output as source images for Photomatix Pro or Photomatix Light.
 	 If you have Lightroom and Photomatix Pro, it is easy to integrate both processes with the Lightroom Export Plug-In to Photomatix Pro.
 	 When using a RAW converter with files intended for HDR merging, you should disable sharpening and uncheck all tonal and exposure-related automatic settings (especially the Exposure adjustment setting but also adjustments for contrast, shadow, etc.) which should be set to zero. This does not apply to files intended for Exposure Fusion, though. For Exposure Fusion, it is better to process your RAW files using the auto-settings of the RAW converter.
 	 As a side note: Though shooting in RAW is definitely better than shooting in jpeg for the dynamic range, this is not really relevant anymore when several exposures are used -- if your bracketed shots properly cover the scene's dynamic range, jpegs will work as well as RAWs for creating an HDR image.


----------



## AUS-10 (Feb 27, 2010)

Nice speed3 btw. I've always wanted a speed6 but all i'm stuck with is a regular 6s. :meh:


----------



## thomas.corbett (Mar 6, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Sorry, I guess that would help
> 
> There's just nothing that captures my attention and I find my eyes wandering aimlessly at the photo, rather flat.
> 
> The others have a lot of depth and really draw me in.




I find the same, really like 1st two. 3rd is a little dark as well.


----------



## tomblacklock (Mar 9, 2010)

number 2 is really good, great how you havent taken the whole HDR thing too far


----------



## sinjans (Mar 9, 2010)

2 is awesome. Great depth


----------

