HDR Image of Huia Bridge, NZ

CdTSnap · Jan 23, 2016

Extreme HDR Look by Chris Turner, on Flickr

Light Guru · Jan 23, 2016

Over processed, the image may not need HDR at all.

CdTSnap · Jan 23, 2016

Light Guru said:
Over processed, the image may not need HDR at all.

It absoulutley didnt need HDR at all, that wasnt the point, I was going for the overprocessed art look. If you note the name of the image "Extreme HDR look"

John Hunt · Jan 24, 2016

The trees on the right side of the bridge are suffering from alignment issues.

Tim Tucker · Jan 24, 2016

For those who get bored with the rant skip to the second part of the text where I don't say anything too bad about the image.

Firstly, I don't know where the idea comes from that when you over-process something it becomes art. It doesn't become artistic interpretation because it looks less like a photo, it just looks less like a photo.

I'm really not a fan of this overdone HDR (and tone-mapping) where the colours are first dulled then fully saturated by re-boosing the contrast. Brown is a saturated colour in RGB, and that's what you get, a lot of thin block colours that look hideous next to each other. So not only do you get a load of colour that doesn't really sit well together you also do most of it at the same value and anybody knows that using colour of similar value (brightness) and hue is a good way to make things difficult to see so cue the addition of a 'black micro contrast', or soot, to outline everything. It's a consequence of the common editing sliders that when you start 'adding' you're really subtracting colour and adding a black micro-contrast to outline your shapes. Does anybody find the colours of that Aurora HDR ad remotely attractive because that's exactly what I see there? It's why many process 'drama' into their shots because 'stormy skies' is where you'll always end up. When I posted "Ice" in the general gallery it was really saying, "here's saturated colour without the black", separated by hue and value not micro-contrast or black. Similarly "Another Tree" is an intricate pattern of grey and black without micro-contrast or saturated colour (hardly any colour at all). For me photography is more about exploring these alternatives than re-producing well trodden visual cliches.

A warm welcome to those who've (probably very wisely) decided to join the post here.

Chris' image is not really that over-done. As with all his posts there remains a sense of realism with it. The problem I have is the colour of the water, I just don't find it has any redeeming features.

CdTSnap · Jan 24, 2016

John Hunt said:
The trees on the right side of the bridge are suffering from alignment issues.

That was pretty much impossible to fix without taking another photo with fast exposure as each photo was a long exposure. The wind was moving all the trees around.

Didereaux · Jan 24, 2016

Waaaay, over done! Killed a great scenic. ;(

CdTSnap · Jan 24, 2016

It's funny the different reactions you get to an image. This was originally black and white which I liked a lot.

Then I posted this one on a local Facebook page and sold 2 prints.

Art in my mind can be almost anything. Why does it have to be over done? Cause you say so? Maybe it was supposed to be "over done"

Most of my images are under done if anything I will quite often bring the vibrance slider down.

Anyway. Art is in the eye of the beholder or some rubbish like that isn't it? I think people on this forum get way to over scientific with things sometimes. Some of you comment saying its over done or its under done or whatever because why? The photography rules tell you so?

My image of the gannet coloney sold 3 prints and the only reason it stood out from other photographers to the buyer was because the birds where ghosted because of the long shutter. However that was the first comment I think on here. "The birds should have been sharp" lol I didn't want the birds to be sharp.

Blah blah blah. I'm off to work now lol rant over

Didereaux · Jan 24, 2016

CdTSnap said:
It's funny the different reactions you get to an image. This was originally black and white which I liked a lot.

Then I posted this one on a local Facebook page and sold 2 prints.

Art in my mind can be almost anything. Why does it have to be over done? Cause you say so? Maybe it was supposed to be "over done"

Most of my images are under done if anything I will quite often bring the vibrance slider down.

Anyway. Art is in the eye of the beholder or some rubbish like that isn't it? I think people on this forum get way to over scientific with things sometimes. Some of you comment saying its over done or its under done or whatever because why? The photography rules tell you so?

My image of the gannet coloney sold 3 prints and the only reason it stood out from other photographers to the buyer was because the birds where ghosted because of the long shutter. However that was the first comment I think on here. "The birds should have been sharp" lol I didn't want the birds to be sharp.

Blah blah blah. I'm off to work now lol rant over

Hey, you only want 'Love its', 'great jobs' etc etc ... find a support group. Personally I don't like the over done processing on this shot and it hasn't got a dam thing to do with any rules!

CdTSnap · Jan 24, 2016

Didereaux said:
Hey, you only want 'Love its', 'great jobs' etc etc ... find a support group. Personally I don't like the over done processing on this shot and it hasn't got a dam thing to do with any rules!

And your welcome to your opinion! No need to get emotional about it haha.

CdTSnap · Jan 24, 2016

Everybody lieks different things. This is probably the only HDR I've done in 12 months for that reason but hey. If it's gonna sell then sweet lol

Bad attitudes.

photo12345 · Jan 24, 2016

I really enjoy this shot. The detail
In the bridge gives me a eere feeling as if the area had been abandoned or much older than it is.But that's just the feeling I get from this imagine. Opinions will always vary. If your happy with the shot and others are buying it id call it a success.

Tim Tucker · Jan 24, 2016

Kudos for selling prints, honestly.

That I don't like tone-mapped images is a personal preference that I'm normally quite clear about, and the reasons why. I also understand light and processing a little so can hazard a guess as to why the utilities pipe and the upper structure of the bridge has a blue cast, and explain the slight colour cast in the shadows.

But what I clearly see is the underside of a dirty cast concrete bridge over a muddy brown creek with some dirty green/brown water running through it. I would normally walk around stuff that colour.

Which I said in my main post was my real problem with it. I personally don't find it appealing, that's all.

CdTSnap · Jan 24, 2016

Tim Tucker said:
Kudos for selling prints, honestly.

That I don't like tone-mapped images is a personal preference that I'm normally quite clear about, and the reasons why. I also understand light and processing a little so can hazard a guess as to why the utilities pipe and the upper structure of the bridge has a blue cast, and explain the slight colour cast in the shadows.

But what I clearly see is the underside of a dirty cast concrete bridge over a muddy brown creek with some dirty green/brown water running through it. I would normally walk around stuff that colour. Which I said in my main post was my real problem with it. I personally don't find it appealing, that's all.

Always appreciated your comments Tim. Your a great photographer also. You should have seen the water haha its not safe to swim in according to the council but locals don't seem to care lol