HDR to C&C and little help with processing

[boogeymanPL]

Hi everyone!
My friend give me a lots of photo to correct it, with most of them I've got no problems, even with hdr's witch is new to me Below is example of my HDR work, I happy with it, it got details and remains natural look (which is very important to my friend, he hates "overcook" photos that looks more like a graphic/painitng rather than photo).

Please tell me what you think about it, I'm open to C&C


Now it's time for my problem. With couple of HDR I can't get good results. Below I attach two processed samples of one shot, with link to original RAWs with diffrent satturation. Please tell me, is that RAWs ok, maybe issue is photo, not a software? I know it looks terrible, but I can't done this better, I don't know what I'm doing wrong... Feel free to procces this RAWs into HDR, I would love to see this image proccesed by pro's But remember, keep it natural!

Original RAWs: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15204515/foto forum/raws.zip

Cheers, and thanks for any help

 

[EchoingWhisper]

You need to do some local contrast enhancement.

Open Unsharp Mask in Photoshop
Set this -
Amount - 25% or more
Radius - (the pixel count of the longer side of your picture - eg 5000)/100 = 50
Threshold - 0

 

[mistermonday]

You need to bring more detail out of the shadows. For optimum results the bracketed set of images should be in 1 ev steps not 2.

Regards, Murray

 

[Bynx]

This is straight out of Photomatix. I dont understand what problems you are having.

 

[Bynx]

Here is just a bit of tweaking.

 

[SlickSalmon]

As the other commenters have demonstrated, you can get a decent image out of this set. But the original images have two fundamental problems: 1) the white balance is significantly off, and 2) the -2 and +2 images aren't evenly under and over exposed. Hence, the middle (0EV) exposure isn't really in the middle. So when combined, the whole image ends up under-exposed. My approach would be to use a RAW processor on the images and correct these two problems before using Photomatix.

 

[boogeymanPL]

Thanks for reply! Slick, that's great idea, I definietly try it.
@Bynx & mistermonday, thanks for that, but that kind of HDR also I can make but it doesn't look natural, more like graphic or painting. My problem is to make this HDR very natural with attention to details, like in example HDR I posted in first post. Or something like this myshkin photo
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6143/5952726687_b876b02ae8_b.jpg


EDIT: I try again, but now first I correct RAWs and then procces. It goes far better, it isn't perfect yet, but I hope I'm on the right way

 

[Bynx]

Looking at your 3 shots EXIF data there is nothing wrong with the settings -- each is 2 fstops apart. In Photomatix there are many settings to choose from. This is a more natural looking one, which I personally dont care for.

 

[Rephargotohp]

HDR cannot create great light even though people try to make it so. HDR can only correctly capture great light that is there
The image is heavily laden in flat shadowed light everywhere except for the small peak on the left. And the sky has no character ( a sky with clouds has much more interest)
This is not a good candidate for a photograph, it is a bad candidate for HDR
Sorry
Bottom Line – It’s still “All About the Light”

 

[mistermonday]

HDR cannot create great light even though people try to make it so. HDR can only correctly capture great light that is there
The image is heavily laden in flat shadowed light everywhere except for the small peak on the left. And the sky has no character ( a sky with clouds has much more interest)
This is not a good candidate for a photograph, it is a bad candidate for HDR
Sorry
Bottom Line – It’s still “All About the Light”

+1
Regards, Murray

 

[boogeymanPL]

HDR cannot create great light even though people try to make it so. HDR can only correctly capture great light that is there
The image is heavily laden in flat shadowed light everywhere except for the small peak on the left. And the sky has no character ( a sky with clouds has much more interest)
This is not a good candidate for a photograph, it is a bad candidate for HDR
Sorry
Bottom Line – It’s still “All About the Light”

Thanks for that, I agree with 100% So if he want's this photo, he must do it again properly, like I suspected.

Cheers and thanks everybody for help!

 

[SlickSalmon]

Here are the histograms for the -2EV, 0EV, and +2EV images. As you can see, the white balance is significantly off, and the under and over exposures are not evenly balanced (ie, the middle exposure isn't in the middle). As Bynx has demonstrated, Photomatix can successfully deal with an image series like this, but it will operate more successfully if the images are corrected first.





If you go thru the trouble of correcting the RAWs before you go into Photomatix, you get this...

The result is maybe not brilliant, but not horrible either.

 

[Bynx]

Thats the first thing to do when shooting a series for HDR is finding the 0EV shot. Thats the best one of the bunch and bracket exposures from there. Slick is right about the underexposure and good use of the Histograms.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I read from the Photomatix site and said 2 EV is enough for good results. Can anyone tell me why 1 EV steps are better?

 

[Bynx]

Its more accurate. The more shots over a wide Dynamic range will produce better results because each shot will be exposed for a particular range particularly the bright areas. The main mistake I make is not taking enough shots to cover a very brilliant highlight. I prefer to take 4 under 0 and 4 over 1 fstop apart for 9 shots instead of 2 under and 2 over 2 fstops apart. Both methods cover the same range, but there could be subtle lighting or shading in which the missing fstops could be the perfect exposure.