Backwater (pseudo-HDR, Comments & criticism are welcome)

PeterN · Jun 3, 2013

Actually this is not a real HDR: only one RAW image (with enough DR) was converted with under and overexposure settings, the results were processed as HDR.
The reason was to utilize as much as possible details at shadows and highlights from the initial 12 (or 14?) bit RAW for the final 8 bit JPEG.
I have some concerns about the sky, but finally I think that it makes more contrast between the foreground and background.
What do you say, did it work?

tirediron · Jun 3, 2013

It's an interesting image, but I find the foreground brightness and background darkness make it look rather 'fake'.

EDL · Jun 3, 2013

I agree with Tirediron. Although a single exposure manipulated this way is arguably not HDR (depends on which HDR camp you reside in), I've seen some that still look pretty good.

Overall this isn't too bad. I like what the treatment did to the foreground, but as mentioned, the dark sky looks out of place. I don't know if this is something that is common in single exposures like this or not (haven't tried it myself). Maybe you could lighten up the sky somehow? Also there's a little bit of haloing above the island portion in the right hand background.

Still, I like it.

PeterN · Jun 3, 2013

Thank you for the feedback and critique.
I'll try to play with the background tonight.

PeterN · Jun 3, 2013

Another attempt

I did not get more details on the sky, so I colored it a bit and cropped it a lot

to reduce its destructive influence on the link between the foreground and the background.

Is this change to good or to bad?

Parker219 · Jun 3, 2013

For some reason this photo is not pleasing to look at, for me anyway.

I think its the colors, too orange for me and "dirty" if that makes sense. Don't get me know, I do like the dirty look, just not here.

Maybe if the main subject was clear, for example crashing waves or moving water. The thing I notice is that big ugly rock. I like rocks, but a combination of the processing and composition just doesn't work for me.

Why don't you post the original photo so I/ someone can try an edit, so you can see a different take on things.

To answer your question, I guess the crop is a little better.

FanBoy · Jun 3, 2013

Your main subject, the rocks, is/are too unsightly. I would try different light/sky conditions for a more pleasing photo.

EDL · Jun 3, 2013

As Emeril would say...BAM!

I like the second one much better. I like the color pop. It's visceral in a compelling way.

PeterN · Jun 4, 2013

Parker219 said:
For some reason this photo is not pleasing to look at, for me anyway.

I think its the colors, too orange for me and "dirty" if that makes sense. Don't get me know, I do like the dirty look, just not here.

Maybe if the main subject was clear, for example crashing waves or moving water. The thing I notice is that big ugly rock. I like rocks, but a combination of the processing and composition just doesn't work for me.

Why don't you post the original photo so I/ someone can try an edit, so you can see a different take on things.

To answer your question, I guess the crop is a little better.

Thank you for the critique. Actually I meant the main subject as the steady water inside the small pool in the foreground (as I tried to reflect in the title of the photo). Sorry, it didn't work

.
I'll upload the photo in several hours from home.

FanBoy said:
Your main subject, the rocks, is/are too unsightly. I would try different light/sky conditions for a more pleasing photo.

Actually I'm playing with pseudo-HDR here just because the light and sky conditions were not good that time and I have no possibility to visit California from Netherlands as often as I want

. So I try to get as much as I can from the existing RAW and you are definitely right regarding it's problematic quality.