More wet rocks, 4 for C&C

[robb01]

3 is def my favorite, but they are all very good

 

[Sisco]

Beauties for sure.just noticing on the horizons you have slight lens distortion from that particular lens I suppose.
Either way, well done series.:thumbup:

I look forward to those trees being showcased!

 

[timlair]

I dont understand how you can meter for the sky in 3, and still expose the rocks perfectly. Those colors are amazing. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG!? haha

 

[Morpheuss]

very beautiful what program do you use to edit your photos?

 

[RobNZ]

Beauties for sure.just noticing on the horizons you have slight lens distortion from that particular lens I suppose.
Either way, well done series.:thumbup:

I look forward to those trees being showcased!

Thanks Sisco, I had another look regarding the lens distortion, I thought I had corrected them all, but I do notice a slight bow on 3, is this what you see as well?

I dont understand how you can meter for the sky in 3, and still expose the rocks perfectly. Those colors are amazing. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG!? haha

Youre not doing anything wrong tim? These are HDR's, I may post a processed single raw later to compare.

very beautiful what program do you use to edit your photos?

Thanks Morpheuss, I use CS5 and Adobe Camera Raw.

 

[...take the shot!]

Beautiful pictures!

 

[FattyMcJ]

I use CS5 and Adobe Camera Raw.

Which is the really remarkable part of it. Most use a dedicated HDR program like Photomatix Pro, including myself, and still don't get these results. Maybe we overcook them, maybe other factors, but the fact that many people can't tell they're actual HDR's is a HUGE pat on the back Rob. Well done! :thumbup:

 

[chito beach]

I use CS5 and Adobe Camera Raw.

Which is the really remarkable part of it. Most use a dedicated HDR program like Photomatix Pro, including myself, and still don't get these results. Maybe we overcook them, maybe other factors, but the fact that many people can't tell they're actual HDR's is a HUGE pat on the back Rob. Well done! :thumbup:

Well said! I feel that 95% of posted HDR pics are over the top and cartoonish. These are amazing

 

[pbelarge]

Good stuff, can't even pick a favorite.

Great processing - how many exposures did you take for each?

Id say one each since the waves, splashes and foam are all sharp

Actually, CS5 is pretty good at reducing ghosts, not perfect but it is pretty good.

The new NIK HDR software will take series of images that have moving objects such as cars, people, water, tree branches and select the portion moving from what the software feels is the best of one of the images. It is pretty selective and quite amazing for the results.



RobNZ
I think the first image works very well with the horizon close to the middle. It is one of the times where breaking the "rule" works very well.
You spent a lot of time for 5 images, but the results show it is worth it, nice job.

 

[D-B-J]

the last one is beautiful, but i wish it was a tad brighter.

 

[RobNZ]

I use CS5 and Adobe Camera Raw.

Which is the really remarkable part of it. Most use a dedicated HDR program like Photomatix Pro, including myself, and still don't get these results. Maybe we overcook them, maybe other factors, but the fact that many people can't tell they're actual HDR's is a HUGE pat on the back Rob. Well done! :thumbup:

Thanks FattyMcJ, I think the reason mine turn out looking real is because my first processing step is to tonemap them to look real, not surrealistic, I spend the time adjusting various areas to get the real look, then check other elements looking for issues that may have developed, correct them, check again, tone again, check etc, this is global, im looking for colour issues, high contrast edge issues, blown areas, movement and so on, then I use CS5 to make any local adjustments that may be needed.

This all takes time, paitence, experience, failure and repeat, lol.

I use CS5 and Adobe Camera Raw.

Which is the really remarkable part of it. Most use a dedicated HDR program like Photomatix Pro, including myself, and still don't get these results. Maybe we overcook them, maybe other factors, but the fact that many people can't tell they're actual HDR's is a HUGE pat on the back Rob. Well done! :thumbup:

Well said! I feel that 95% of posted HDR pics are over the top and cartoonish. These are amazing

Thanks chito.

Id say one each since the waves, splashes and foam are all sharp

Actually, CS5 is pretty good at reducing ghosts, not perfect but it is pretty good.

The new NIK HDR software will take series of images that have moving objects such as cars, people, water, tree branches and select the portion moving from what the software feels is the best of one of the images. It is pretty selective and quite amazing for the results.



RobNZ
I think the first image works very well with the horizon close to the middle. It is one of the times where breaking the "rule" works very well.
You spent a lot of time for 5 images, but the results show it is worth it, nice job.

Thanks pbelarge, remove ghosts feature is my first step, I try auto first, check and compare with other frames to find the one that provides either no ghosting or the least.

the last one is beautiful, but i wish it was a tad brighter.

It could be much brighter, it was almost completely dark at the time of the shot, and I did want to keep that feel and not make it feel like a night shot made to look like daylight. Thanks for your feedback D-B-J.