First hdr C&C

Noxire · Oct 26, 2009

3 exposures blended in photomatix and using some tone-mapping, then hightening contrasts in photoshop.

And yes i know that hdrs are supposed to increase the detail in the darkest/lighest parts of the image, but i setteled with the high contrasts (well the details weren't of any interest anyway).
So... What about it!?

robbie_vlad · Oct 26, 2009

Nice, but if you hadn't said it was HDR, I would never have known. I'm fairly certain that HDR wasn't necessary to get this outcome, could you possibly post up the original 3?

I like the overall image, it has a very soothing and relaxing vibe to it and the symmetry works well here. The glare on the lake to the left is very distracting though.

Noxire · Oct 26, 2009

Indeed i don't think the hdr was necessary, but i discovered the result in tonemapping after i had merged them. (realized that the trees looked horrible when in detail) (guess i failed in making a hdr :/)

Missdaisy · Oct 26, 2009

What a gorgeous shot! I would print and hang this one! I could picture myself sitting by the lake watching the sun go down.

I haven't given HDR a go yet so I cannot offer any advice. Keep at it!

Noxire · Oct 26, 2009

Actually it was wonderfull to sit and wait for "the moment" apart from being scared to death by one of the natives (a beaver) that took a dive and splashed water on me ('bout 5-10 meters away).

Canosonic · Oct 26, 2009

Great shot! Real fresh! Was this sunrise or sunset?

Noxire · Oct 26, 2009

Sunset

fiveoboy01 · Oct 26, 2009

Nice photo, but definitely one that didn't need the HDR treatment. Doesn't have much range anyhow.

righteous_bucks · Oct 26, 2009

Very nice, I love the colors

Buckster · Oct 26, 2009

It's a terrific photo. What the HDR treatment did to it and for it are known only to you, the shooter. If you think it enhanced this photo to what it is, then that's a good enough reason to use it, whether anyone else thinks it 'needed' it or not.

Whether a photo "needs" HDR, or B&W, or cyanotype, or duotone, or sepia, or any other treatment is irrelevant. It is the choice of the artist to apply any of these (and much, much more) or not, in order to produce the end result to his or her own taste.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to justify your choices to those who seem to think that HDR should or even must only be used when "needed". It can also be used as an artistic choice, just like any of those others and many more, pure and simple.

AUZambo · Oct 26, 2009

Noxire said:
3 exposures blended in photomatix and using some tone-mapping, then hightening contrasts in photoshop.

And yes i know that hdrs are supposed to increase the detail in the darkest/lighest parts of the image, but i setteled with the high contrasts (well the details weren't of any interest anyway).
So... What about it!?

Where are you hosting the image? I see nothing...must be blocked here.

JamesMason · Oct 26, 2009

Nice shot, have you tried pushing the WB abit more towards the yellow end ?

Where are you hosting the image? I see nothing...must be blocked here.

devart

fiveoboy01 · Oct 26, 2009

Buckster said:
It's a terrific photo. What the HDR treatment did to it and for it are known only to you, the shooter. If you think it enhanced this photo to what it is, then that's a good enough reason to use it, whether anyone else thinks it 'needed' it or not.

Whether a photo "needs" HDR, or B&W, or cyanotype, or duotone, or sepia, or any other treatment is irrelevant. It is the choice of the artist to apply any of these (and much, much more) or not, in order to produce the end result to his or her own taste.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to justify your choices to those who seem to think that HDR should or even must only be used when "needed". It can also be used as an artistic choice, just like any of those others and many more, pure and simple.

IF you are pointing towards my post, and I suspect you are, I do not disagree with you. In the end it's all subjective and up to the choice of the artist.

I was merely speaking from a technical viewpoint, that the image could have likely been shot with one exposure and nearly the same result(though there is no clear way to know for sure without seeing the original).

Buckster · Oct 26, 2009

fiveoboy01 said:
Buckster said:

It's a terrific photo. What the HDR treatment did to it and for it are known only to you, the shooter. If you think it enhanced this photo to what it is, then that's a good enough reason to use it, whether anyone else thinks it 'needed' it or not.

Whether a photo "needs" HDR, or B&W, or cyanotype, or duotone, or sepia, or any other treatment is irrelevant. It is the choice of the artist to apply any of these (and much, much more) or not, in order to produce the end result to his or her own taste.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to justify your choices to those who seem to think that HDR should or even must only be used when "needed". It can also be used as an artistic choice, just like any of those others and many more, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

IF you are pointing towards my post, and I suspect you are, I do not disagree with you. In the end it's all subjective and up to the choice of the artist.

I had no intent to single you or anyone else out. I noticed it had been said a couple times in this thread, and many times in many other threads, that "HDR was not needed" for some particular shot. I personally think that misses the point.

fiveoboy01 said:
I was merely speaking from a technical viewpoint, that the image could have likely been shot with one exposure and nearly the same result(though there is no clear way to know for sure without seeing the original).

Exactly so; There's no way to know for sure.

My point however, goes well beyond that; That regardless of whether it was "needed" (in the subjective mind of the viewer), it's not against any photographic law to use it as one desires, to any effect, little or great, or even none (perceptible) at all.

There seems to be a feeling by some on the forum that HDR should only be used to help with dynamic range of poorly lit, high contrast scenes, and that any other use is somehow taboo or wrong or misapplied; that it shouldn't be done.

I find that to be an overreaching position that comes off as somewhat authoritarian in many cases. HDR and, in particular the tone mapping associated with it, can be and is used for much more than just averaging shadows and highlights within a composition, and can be used in creative ways well beyond that just as any other filter or treatment to a photo can be used artistically.

To say, or even imply, that it should not have been used, as seems to be the case by some folks when noting that "it wasn't needed", I believe is a comment itself not needed.

"Needed" is irrelevant to the artistic process, other than what the artist thinks is needed.