First HDR C&C if you will?

Clowned

Clowned

Clowned

Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2003
Posts
584
Location
UK
Hi all,
Took a boat load of photos on boxing day, i took the tripod too for its first real outing.
I have a remote shutter, but didnt use it, which apparenty i should have, as im sure most of you will notice from the outcome.
Anyway, I had a play around in photomatrix3, and got this which i thought id share, as i liked it!



(Click for full size jpg)

C&C welcome, as i dont really know im doing tbh :D ive always been a point and shoot person !
Cheers peeps.
 
For those saying it's overcooked, I presume you mean for your taste?

If the OP likes it, then it's not overdone IMO.

Nice shot, I'd prefer it a little brighter, but top left I can see a couple of dust spots?
 
I think at prefer it as super constrasty black and white. Horizon isn't straight either but easily fixable
 
I think it's quite cool, but I love the unreal sort of look tone mapping always gives. I always like seeing real photos being made look like CGI enviroments :)
 
Clowned said:
Dust will be from the uv filter i guess?
Click to expand...

Dust on a filter doesn't usually show up like that, unless it's big.

It's more likely on your sensor.

Take a few pics of a plain light surface, flat sky/wall etc, and see if the spots are still there with the filter cleaned/removed?
 
Clowned said:
Overcooked i take it you mean, ive gone over the top with the effects when i processed the hdr?
Click to expand...

Yeah basically, too much tone mapping, lay off a bit on that. I don't mind HDR, just when it's overcooked it looks a bit naff. Also I'm not sure it works at all for this shot, because the grass texture has now become hard to distinguish from the rocks.
 
I'm really torn with HDR because I think it can be used correctly but most people don't know how or don't understand what it's there for. The thing most people do with their first HDR shots is ramp up the tone-mapping until the shot looks like a 3d render and they think that's how HDR should look.

The way I see it is this: If the shot has a decent exposure across the whole range and there's enough info in the shadows/mids/highlights then there's no need for HDR. The only time you need it is if the conditions require it.

If you absolutely need multiple exposures to record all the data across the various tonal-areas then by all means use the HDR process but the end result should look like a correctly exposed (single) photograph - not something out of Half-Life...

Having looked at those originals I don't think the conditions really necessitated an HDR image. Fair play to you for trying a new technique but some methods require a specific time and place and IMO this isn't it.

Just my 2p

Panzer
 
Why are you HDR'ing it when there's blatantly enough detail in the original automatically-metered shot? The sky's not blown and the beach isn't at all dark. Talk about HDR for the sake of it, jeez.
 
Guys! Can you point me to the link where the 'rules' or 'laws' around using HDR are detailed please?... :rolleyes:

HDR can be a technical way to achieve a wider exposure range in a given shot, or it can be a technique taken to the other extreme with tone mapping to achieve those 'half life' style shots.

Yes, believe it or not, some people use HDR to achieve a certain look to their photographs, not just for technical reasons - it's called photography, which last time I looked was a creative thing...

I'm not saying the pic in the first post is the last word in that technique, but again, if the OP likes it (and I'm feeling that in this case he does!) then that's that as far as I'm concerned.

By all means air your views on it, but please don't say there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' way of doing things where photographic style is concerned. It's all just so narrow minded...
 
Tooks said:
By all means air your views on it, but please don't say there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' way of doing things where photographic style is concerned. It's all just so narrow minded...
Click to expand...

Agreed. Some people, like myself use HDR and then tone mapping because we like the surreal CGI look it gives images. We don't care whether its technically right for some, it's down to what pleases the eye.
 
Tooks said:
By all means air your views on it, but please don't say there is a 'right' or a 'wrong' way of doing things where photographic style is concerned. It's all just so narrow minded...
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about "right or wrong", and if you reduce photography to something wholly subjective---"if you like it, it's good!"---then what on earth is the point in posting C&C threads?
 
robmiller said:
Nobody said anything about "right or wrong", and if you reduce photography to something wholly subjective---"if you like it, it's good!"---then what on earth is the point in posting C&C threads?
Click to expand...

I think it was the following quote that made me post what I did, unless that was you saying you liked it? If so, then I apologise...

robmiller said:
Why are you HDR'ing it when there's blatantly enough detail in the original automatically-metered shot? The sky's not blown and the beach isn't at all dark. Talk about HDR for the sake of it, jeez.
Click to expand...

Basically, you were saying that HDR is to be used only for exposure reasons, when clearly there are artistic reasons for using HDR also. HDR 'for the sake of it' is fine in my book.

There isn't much technically 'wrong' with the OP's shot, just that you don't like it, which is fine, but your narrow definition of when HDR should be used is the bit I was taking issue, hopefully politely, with.

Also, subjective photography is exactly what the OP's image is, so where's the problem?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom