Bear Bank HDR

[WMplus]

Just a little bear coin bank I got in Thailand I decided to play around with. Hopefully I managed to dial in my screen calibration finally. Let me know what you think.

Here is a heavier HDR edit I did as well

 

[cgipson1]

HDR is designed to allow us to compensate for our digital cameras lack of dynamic range... so that we can capture images with a really wide dynamic range. I can't help but wonder why you thought that this subject has a wide enough dynamic range to need HDR? It is definitely tone mapped, and overly saturated.. but I cannot see any benefit to the photo from HDR. Rather the opposite.. unless you were attempting to make a cartoon!

 

[WMplus]

Honestly I was hoping to the highlight the reflection in the chair behind the bear. The reflection clearly didn't come out as my as I wanted but I still thought it was interesting. Why did I take this photo and use HDR for it? Mostly because I bored and I've only recently had the means to do it. Anyways I appreciate the criticism.

 

[Hussain Frutan]

niice shoot cool editing too
i like the first one

keep it upp

 

[jowensphoto]

This is a common problem among the especially new: take a not-so-great photo and do some heavy editing to make it "good". It doesn't work like that. And in terms of HDR, the result is usually 65432476x more terrible than the original.

All that aside, why would you want to bring out the reflection in the chair? Is the chair your subject? I'd be surprised to hear that the answer is yes, given that the title of your thread is Bear Bank, not Relflection in Chair Arm.

 

[Frequency]

I have a doubt ... can HDR enhance a 3D appeal??? i felt so about the first image... of course i felt the second image is ruined by activity, not so much about image 1
I would be benefited to see the original non HDR image too; i really like the explanation given by Gipson...and equally impressed by the calm composure of WMplus while hearing things

 

[cgipson1]

I have a doubt ... can HDR enhance a 3D appeal??? i felt so about the first image... of course i felt the second image is ruined by activity, not so much about image 1
I would be benefited to see the original non HDR image too; i really like the explanation given by Gipson...and equally impressed by the calm composure of WMplus while hearing things

I agree .. WMplus took the comment very well!

 

[cgipson1]

Honestly I was hoping to the highlight the reflection in the chair behind the bear. The reflection clearly didn't come out as my as I wanted but I still thought it was interesting. Why did I take this photo and use HDR for it? Mostly because I bored and I've only recently had the means to do it. Anyways I appreciate the criticism.

Getting bored.. and trying new stuff is fine... good way to learn! I apologize if my comment seemed a bit sarcastic... we see so much OVERDONE HDR by people new to it, that it is sometimes not well received! lol!

 

[WMplus]

Getting bored.. and trying new stuff is fine... good way to learn! I apologize if my comment seemed a bit sarcastic... we see so much OVERDONE HDR by people new to it, that it is sometimes not well received! lol!

I totally understand and I agree especially with the second one that the HDR was definitely over done. As for getting out the reflection of the chair that was actually a focus of the image since this was an experiment for me more than anything. For Frequency I've uploaded one of the Original photos that I thought was the best exposed. Note: I forgot to set my white balance so I corrected it later in photoshop for the HDR image.

Heres one where I fixed the white balance and just did some minor edits

 

[12sndsgood]

im one that generally doesn't like the overdone hdr's but this subject i just kinda like the look.its a cartoony figure with a cartoony look to it. just looks like a fun experiment.

 

[Frequency]

I think i went wrong... the 3D feel is there even without HDR; now i really understand the significance of Gipson's post....

WMplus, thank you for showing the original

 

[QuadTap]

HDR is designed to allow us to compensate for our digital cameras lack of dynamic range... so that we can capture images with a really wide dynamic range. I can't help but wonder why you thought that this subject has a wide enough dynamic range to need HDR? It is definitely tone mapped, and overly saturated.. but I cannot see any benefit to the photo from HDR. Rather the opposite.. unless you were attempting to make a cartoon!

why is that people like yourself have such a hard time understanding that other people think that HDR is fun for fun sake and doesn't have to be used "properly"?

edit: i am one of the ones that *tries to use it properly without being overdone