First Sunset in Hawaii-- HDR-- C&C please

[shortpballer]

Everyone has an opinion. Just like everyone has an a$$ hole. It just happens to be that some of them stink

Yes, however I find my self perplexed to your defensiveness. You make a C&C thread, but any time a critique is given, you try to shut it down with your own explanation that justifies why it's wrong. (i.e., "Well... it's supposed to be like that!")

You justify the trees being OOF by saying it's "supposed" to be like that since there were multiple shots to make an HDR. However, neither image is HDR. The first image just looks like an underexposed sunset, not a high dynamic range (HDR in case you didn't know).

Take the criticism to better your future images rather than trying to mold your flawed images into something that is "supposed" to be wrong, OOF, etc. I don't think I have ever seen someone respond with "Yeah, the entire image is supposed to be OOF. I did it on purpose."

Everyone has an opinion. Just like everyone has an a$$ hole. It just happens to be that some of them stink

Congratulations!
You made it to my ignore list!

Win!

Relax man...it wasn't a contest.

You just don't understand how HDR is done...so I was trying to explain it to you. And you still don't get it...

 

[Josh220]

I know how HDR is done. However, your image did not come out as an HDR. Perhaps you tried to, but it only came out underexposed. Therefore my point is completely relevant.

Seriously...

WHARGARBL!

 

[shed301]

anyone?

 

[shortpballer]

I'm done arguing lets just drop it...

 

[shortpballer]

And helpful criticism is what I ask for. Not an argument. Someone to say, "hey do this next time..." But saying my trees aren't in focus, when it is impossible to not get movement over several different shots, isn't helpful criticism.

 

[PhotoXopher]

Pass the popcorn, please.

 

[jca12206]

Both are gorgeous photos. The bottom of the first one is a little distracting to me. I really like the use of the fish eye in the second one. Gives it a lot of personality.

 

[spaz2145]

I was trying to see if anyone would notice.

The first is taken with a 12-24 tokina superwide
the second is taken with my sigma 8mm ex fisheye

see i'm not as much as an idiot as you tried to make it sound like(im the 14 yr old that had the lens question that u got mad about)

i suggest cropping most of the trees out or next time taking more of a sky shot...constructive and friendly xD....and can someone pass the popcorn

 

[musicaleCA]

I think using a fish on a landscape shot is usually overdoing it, unless you do it very well. Having a building in the image just screams funky (a very, "that's not right" feeling), because of the severe distortion. There is also haloing around the building, and odd dark regions on the left and right of the sky. Without seeing the original images, it's difficult to tell if this is because of poor PP (which given that you were using exposure blending the most likely possibility) or aberrations of the lens being magnified by the PP. If you really wanted more detail in the dark parts of the image, using a single exposure and putting it through a processes similar to Topaz Adjust would net better results. Straight-up exposure blending is only really useful when you have two general areas of the scene that are vastly different in exposure.

As for the first image, no, it doesn't look like an HDR. There's no details in the shadows, it lacks contrast, and looks posterized (which can happen if you don't take care in down-sampling the 32-bit image). I don't see any really compelling reason to have made an HDR either. Such scenes are handled just fine with a single exposure, when done correctly. Let the shoreline and trees go black and they'll augment rather than detract from the colours of the sunset.

Of course it is going to look like the focus is off... they were both set at infinity so it is impossible for the focus to be off.

Wrong. Point your lens at something far away, and use AF. And then look at the range finder on the focus ring and notice how you can keep turning the ring just a smidge. Most lenses can actually focus past that point. If you bumped the lens and suddenly couldn't focus at infinity, you'd be royally screwed, so there's a little extra space.

Anyway, the second image does look soft. If your camera wasn't on a tripod, it really should've been.

My advice is to not complicate matters trying to produce HDR images without going into it with a solid understanding of proper technique in taking them. Every single problem that can affect the quality of a single exposure is significantly magnified by creating an HDR, including noise, CA, vibrations (from the ground and tripod), mirror slap (vibrations in the camera), and vignetting. You need to know your gear like the back of your hand, have a sturdy tripod, remote release, and very good, steady, stable technique to be successful at producing HDRs.

 

[Josh220]

And helpful criticism is what I ask for. Not an argument. Someone to say, "hey do this next time..." But saying my trees aren't in focus, when it is impossible to not get movement over several different shots, isn't helpful criticism.

That's exactly what it is. Underexposure, improper techniques (HDR in this case), missed focus, etc are all valid critique points.

 

[shortpballer]

I think using a fish on a landscape shot is usually overdoing it, unless you do it very well. Having a building in the image just screams funky (a very, "that's not right" feeling), because of the severe distortion. There is also haloing around the building, and odd dark regions on the left and right of the sky. Without seeing the original images, it's difficult to tell if this is because of poor PP (which given that you were using exposure blending the most likely possibility) or aberrations of the lens being magnified by the PP. If you really wanted more detail in the dark parts of the image, using a single exposure and putting it through a processes similar to Topaz Adjust would net better results. Straight-up exposure blending is only really useful when you have two general areas of the scene that are vastly different in exposure.

As for the first image, no, it doesn't look like an HDR. There's no details in the shadows, it lacks contrast, and looks posterized (which can happen if you don't take care in down-sampling the 32-bit image). I don't see any really compelling reason to have made an HDR either. Such scenes are handled just fine with a single exposure, when done correctly. Let the shoreline and trees go black and they'll augment rather than detract from the colours of the sunset.

Of course it is going to look like the focus is off... they were both set at infinity so it is impossible for the focus to be off.

Wrong. Point your lens at something far away, and use AF. And then look at the range finder on the focus ring and notice how you can keep turning the ring just a smidge. Most lenses can actually focus past that point. If you bumped the lens and suddenly couldn't focus at infinity, you'd be royally screwed, so there's a little extra space.

Anyway, the second image does look soft. If your camera wasn't on a tripod, it really should've been.

My advice is to not complicate matters trying to produce HDR images without going into it with a solid understanding of proper technique in taking them. Every single problem that can affect the quality of a single exposure is significantly magnified by creating an HDR, including noise, CA, vibrations (from the ground and tripod), mirror slap (vibrations in the camera), and vignetting. You need to know your gear like the back of your hand, have a sturdy tripod, remote release, and very good, steady, stable technique to be successful at producing HDRs.

Thanks for all the help. I have a question about the focusing. I use manual almost always. Are you saying that I shouldn't have had it focused at infinity? and I should have used autofocus and let it focus a little before infinity?

 

[musicaleCA]

No, I'm saying you should focus at infinity, but let the AF do it. As long as there's enough light, the AF sensor and processor are going to be more accurate than your eye. (Use something contrasty like the edge of the building; that'll give the AF something to use to make sure it hasn't gone past the correct focus distance.)