Help with HDR

xfloggingkylex

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1
Location
Frederick, MD
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
UPDATED VERSION ON POST 16

I like this picture, a lot. I just feel that there is something wrong with it, and I dont know what it is or how to fix it so I thought I'd get another perspective on it.

churchHDR.jpg
 
I get the same problem shooting through branches at sunset. There's some additional haloing going on at the top of the steeple. Shooting RAW and learning to fine tune the tone mapping has helped some, but still I have some difficulty.
 
I dunno- I think the church has more possibilties. Maybe something non-HDR, like straightening out the tilt would help quite a bit. I like the colors very much.

The angel looks too busy and lacks in composition.
 
The angel statue I would def. Make it B&W. and maybe more of a close up on the angel
 
Since this is Photo Critique and we are primarily meant to talk about the HDR of the church, I suggest you best only show the angel as link since that is not the photo in question. When people start to talk about both, we create some confusion.

In sticking to the original version presented by the OT, I do agree that the church is a bit "milky" or "foggy" a opposed to the rest of the photo and the overall impression of the scene, so some selective work on the building alone could help.

With only my big toe on the waters of HDR I still know way too little about proper tone mapping in order to create a good, natural looking HDR photo, but it seems like this still has not been tuned finely enough ... though I don't know if that CAN be done even better. But the halo around the roof of the church becomes instantly visible.

The b&w version looks good but (to me) almost no longer like an HDR since the colour gradients in the sky got all eliminated. It now more looks like exposure was on the church and the sky did not really matter that much...
 
The b&w version looks good but (to me) almost no longer like an HDR since the colour gradients in the sky got all eliminated. It now more looks like exposure was on the church and the sky did not really matter that much...

I would agree with most of this. The B&W certainly brings out the detail of the rocks in the church. (As a rock guy, I love to see how they stacked the rock in these old buildings.) I think with a little tweaking in levels or curves you can bring out some light and detail and add substantially to the original color.
 
You don't have a large enough range of exposure. I barely see any detail in the church. You need to really "overexpose" a few shots to bring out detail in the building.
 
You don't have a large enough range of exposure. I barely see any detail in the church. You need to really "overexpose" a few shots to bring out detail in the building.

Im thinking I just dont know how to use the program I have because I took 5 exposures bracketed at 2 stops each, so +2 and 4, and - 2 and 4 stops, so I had plenty of over exposure.

I'll have to give it another run.
 
Well, that all depends on how you were metering, as to what would be considered "over exposure". Don't think in terms of bracketing. Look at your scene, and the dynamic range that you are trying to cover. If I were metering this scene, I would take some spot readings of the sky, in its brightest parts. Then I would try and look for the deepest shadows. I would meter the walls of the church, making sure to include an exposure that gives them the tones I want.

Reading up on the zone system will help you understand this type of thinking.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top