First attempt at HDR

Scubagod · Jan 18, 2011

Hey all, here is my first attempt at HDR. Its a shot I took of the Brooklyn Bridge and then processed it through Photomatix. I'd love your thoughts. Brooklyn Bridge HDR | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

KamesG · Jan 18, 2011

I think it looks great. There is obviously a few spots that could use some editing. Like around the clouds.

I'd say for your first attempts, they are very solid attempts.

How many shots did you need for that one?

3bayjunkie · Jan 18, 2011

wow it looks like a drawing! that is weird. I have never tried. but i heard it is pretty easy to do with bracketing and photoshop...

Light Artisan · Jan 18, 2011

As a piece of art, it's interesting.

As an HDR photograph, it's absolutely awful.

Scubagod · Jan 18, 2011

Why is it awful as an HDR? Care to expand? Again, this is my first attempt. Please at least back it down with your comments and remain constructive, not critical.

Scubagod · Jan 18, 2011

Edited

Infidel · Jan 18, 2011

Scubagod said:
Hey all, here is my first attempt at HDR. Its a shot I took of the Brooklyn Bridge and then processed it through Photomatix. I'd love your thoughts. Brooklyn Bridge HDR | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Scubagod said:
Why is it awful as an HDR? Care to expand? Again, this is my first attempt. Please at least back it down with your comments and remain constructive, not critical.

It doesn't look like a photograph at all, so that makes it awful as an HDR photograph. It looks like a painting or a drawing, suggesting that the post processing went WAY too far, if the goal was to make it look even remotely realistic. That said, some people enjoy the look of highly processed HDR images, as art, whether they're technically "good" photographs or not, which is what LA was likely referring to in the first part of his post. Wanna learn more about how HDR photographs are often evaluated around here? Check out the HDR sub-forum.

Also, by definition, constructive criticism is, well, critical. LA's comment may have been a little snarky, but I'm sure he'll come back with some more detailed comments. Just be cool, man.

Scubagod said:
As an aside, your blog photos are not very impressive at all. A little contrast would go a long way. Stark white through an entire photograph is well...boring.

He didn't ask you to comment on his blog photos. That's just a cheap shot, man.

pdq5oh · Jan 19, 2011

The colors are way over-saturated. I think contrast is overdone. I've found clouds to be tough to get just right in a very bright sky. The idea of HDR is to render a photo that captures the full, dynamic range of the light. A dynamic range not able to be captured in a single exposure. A well done HDR looks more like what our eyes see, with better shadow and highlight detail. I do like the composition tho.
I looked at LA's blog and did see a lot of white, properly exposed snow. :wink:

lyonsroar · Jan 19, 2011

Scubagod said:
As an aside, your blog photos are not very impressive at all. A little contrast would go a long way. Stark white through an entire photograph is well...boring.

So you didn't like his style of comment so to express your dislike, you commented on his work in the same way? That makes PERFECT sense.

AS has been said in this thread before, your first HDR "photograph" has crossed the threshold of photography and has entered the realm of the graphic arts. It's important to stress that that is not necessarily a bad thing! Just different...

We actually have an HDR section here:
HDR Discussions - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

Light Artisan · Jan 19, 2011

Scubagod, when I posted that I was on my iPhone sitting on the crapper - I meant to come back and elaborate more after I got my kids off to bed but after seeing your response I figured why bother.

I stand by my comments however...

And because I'm a stand up kind of guy, I'll even give you something to read so you understand what HDR is, and you can properly identify your work next time.

High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PS
My blogs are just for fun... nice rip though, next time check out my actual work at http://www.lightartisan.com

TheEugeneKam · Jan 19, 2011

as HDR its pretty bad, but as a painiting I would love this on my wall

JG_Coleman · Jan 19, 2011

I have to agree with what seems to be the general consensus. At least for my own taste, this shot is very over-processed. I will attempt to elaborate, though...

For starters, as was mentioned earlier, it doesn't really bear much resemblance to anything that could be called a "photograph". Without getting into a debate about what constitutes photography (let's not crack open that can of worms...PLEASE!!!), it's rather clear that this shot lacks any feeling of realism. It looks variously like a painting or color-pencil drawing... but not really like a photograph. But, let's assume that you were going for that look. This first attempt still suffers from certain problems.

Take the clouds, for example... they've been mangled by the tone-mapping process. I can only imagine that they were originally fluffy and white... but the HDR proces has transformed them into rather unappealing, uniform grayish blobs in the sky. This largely defeats the whole point of HDR, which is to expand dynamic range. Ideally, you'd tweak the HDR settings to get nicely-exposed clouds AND a nicely exposed foreground. That's not happening here.

Also, there are strange "cracks" running through the clouds. I'm guessing that these are remnants of blown-out highlights in one of your exposures that made it into the final HDR. Again, one of the major drives behind using HDR is to tame wide disparities between light and dark in a scene. If blown-out highlights make it into the final HDR, you're doing something wrong.

Another problem I'm seeing is a "blotchy" blending of exposures in the sky. The sky towards the upper corners has a noticeably different coloration than the portion of the sky closer to the interior of the frame. Ideally, the sky wouldn't have this type of blotchy, uneven appearance. Tone-mapping should be more consistent to produce a result that doesn't look...well... down-right strange.

You want viewers to notice your subject matter, not your tone-mapping. In order to achieve that, it's important to eliminate all the technical flaws that can arise when exposures are merged.

Hope I could be of some help.

dragsternj · Jan 19, 2011

People who ask for C&C should actually be able to handle C&C . It may not always be nice, but i prefer an honest opinion

my2cents

Amocholes · Jan 20, 2011

I find HDR processing to be very subjective. Depending on what you're going for. This one is obviously going for the "Artsy" look as opposed to photo-realism. As such, I like this one. Comments such as "over-processed" have no bearing as the artist was obviously going for a surreal look. Perhaps a bit more contrast on the stonework would focus the eye on it since everything is pointing to it.

JG_Coleman · Jan 20, 2011

Amocholes said:
Comments such as "over-processed" have no bearing as the artist was obviously going for a surreal look.

This is a critique of the HDR, Amocholes... a C&C, if you will. Whether or not the artist was going for that look has no bearing on criticisms. You've got it backwards.