I gave it a shot.

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'll have to try again, I think.

 

[tevo]

Post the original with the +0 exposure, I dont think HDR really benefits this photo. But I could be wrong.

 

[shootermcgavin]

Wow Tijuana sure has gotten beautiful... I agree with the Tevos comment I didn't notice it was HDR until I looked at section. I like the shot though it reminds me of the arches in Tijuana.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I didn't notice it was HDR until I looked at section.

I'll take that as a compliment, and run with it

It was a difficult subject to shoot, for me.

 

[tevo]

I didn't notice it was HDR until I looked at section.

I'll take that as a compliment, and run with it

It was a difficult subject to shoot, for me.

I didn't mean that in a bad way, I just dont think the HDR has any contributing factor to the composition or end result. Generally one would use an HDR if he required multiple exposures for everything to be exposed properly, and the only thing I can think of is that the bushes would be underexposed - which is why I was curious about the original.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yeah, the trees were dark. I know you didn't mean what you said in a bad way.
The arch was lit by the sun, and the trees were in the shadows of the city. So in nearly all my shots, the trees are dark.

Every shot I took of it that evening (golden hour) I bracketed +/-1

 

[tevo]

Yeah, the trees were dark. I know you didn't mean what you said in a bad way.
The arch was lit by the sun, and the trees were in the shadows of the city. So in nearly all my shots, the trees are dark.

Every shot I took of it that evening (golden hour) I bracketed +/-1

Ah, that makes sense - no wonder the HDR-ness isnt extremely noticeable. I prefer HDRs when you can't tell they are HDRs. It becomes more of a shooting technique rather than a fauxtography +100 saturation and 400 filters later weak spermed inbred product of picasa and 13 year old high school children.

 

[pathoulihan1]

Ah, that makes sense - no wonder the HDR-ness isnt extremely noticeable. I prefer HDRs when you can't tell they are HDRs. It becomes more of a shooting technique rather than a fauxtography +100 saturation and 400 filters later weak spermed inbred product of picasa and 13 year old high school children.

Wow! I swear I chuckled heartily at that comparison. I agree that HDR can be used effectively to get a "normal" looking shot under difficult lighting circumstances, but I have to admit I do like that artful effect some HDR achieves.

As for this image, I like the glow of the sky, the foliage is nicely exposed as a foreground and not to saturated and the composition is thoughtful. I like the lines ( tree line, path, arch). Good stuff!

-Pat

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Yeah, the trees were dark. I know you didn't mean what you said in a bad way.
The arch was lit by the sun, and the trees were in the shadows of the city. So in nearly all my shots, the trees are dark.

Every shot I took of it that evening (golden hour) I bracketed +/-1

Ah, that makes sense - no wonder the HDR-ness isnt extremely noticeable. I prefer HDRs when you can't tell they are HDRs. It becomes more of a shooting technique rather than a fauxtography +100 saturation and 400 filters later weak spermed inbred product of picasa and 13 year old high school children.

 

[Derrel]

This is just a snapshot. I would not even have considered showing this. If you ware going to post pictures you need to make sure it is of something unusual or with a personal vision. Otherwise you are going to loose the interest of your audience. George Spelvin [Nikon D200, Nikon D70s backup, 17-35 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 4GB Microdrive (2), Photoshop CS, Epson 2200]


http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

 

[tevo]

This is just a snapshot. I would not even have considered showing this. If you ware going to post pictures you need to make sure it is of something unusual or with a personal vision. Otherwise you are going to loose the interest of your audience. George Spelvin [Nikon D200, Nikon D70s backup, 17-35 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 4GB Microdrive (2), Photoshop CS, Epson 2200]


http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Your argument is invalid, because Jeweler has already lost our interest. In fact, he is the worst photographer in the history of TPF. Duh.

 

[tevo]

Ah, that makes sense - no wonder the HDR-ness isnt extremely noticeable. I prefer HDRs when you can't tell they are HDRs. It becomes more of a shooting technique rather than a fauxtography +100 saturation and 400 filters later weak spermed inbred product of picasa and 13 year old high school children.

Wow! I swear I chuckled heartily at that comparison. I agree that HDR can be used effectively to get a "normal" looking shot under difficult lighting circumstances, but I have to admit I do like that artful effect some HDR achieves.

As for this image, I like the glow of the sky, the foliage is nicely exposed as a foreground and not to saturated and the composition is thoughtful. I like the lines ( tree line, path, arch). Good stuff!

-Pat

I agree with this ! I have seen some very nicely done HDRs; with that being said, I can confidently say that most of them were NOT 3 tonemapped images processed to the specifications of a preset built into Photomatix - there was some degree of aesthetic interpretation when changing the highlights, shadows, luminosity, etc

 

[Bynx]

Well done Bitter Jeweler under some difficult lighting conditions. Im not getting some of the goofy comments by some knuckleheads, but I think this is a lot better than a snapshot.

 

[thomas30]

Good work Bitter Jeweler. You can capture it from different angle and later compare which one is the best.

 

[Compaq]

Does it matter what method was used? The processing is very good. Smooth transitions between contrast areas, no halos. If anything, the pathway suddenly goes from blue-ish to grey and back to some blue (and red stripes?)...