Comparison help - original or "merged" ?

[simonkit]

Sorry if this is getting a bit boring but here's another I've just edited - 2nd shot is a "merge" of 2 Tiff files created from the original RAW. Which one works for you (if any) ?

thanks

simon

ORIGINAL

MERGED

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I personally much prefer the original to the merged one, but that is because I normally like (my) photos a tad darker, more contrasty, and nicely saturated, and in your original one I see all the detail, also in the darker parts of the grass on the bank, that I need to see, and the sky is bluer in the water (the second is also a bit cropped, isn't it?), which I like.

So if you were to ask only me, you'd hear: the original one.

But others may think all differently, of course.

 

[abraxas]

I think #1 also. By working with the same original RAW file nothing is gained by dividing it and putting it back together. Like having a glass of water, pouring it into two glasses and then back into one.

I'm finding, in most cases, I prefer working with a single RAW over 3-5 exposure HDR.