Recent HDR's, C&C

[Invictus]

Don't worry about the halos, I got lazy and didn't bother editing them. I am looking for C&C on the colors, balance, and concept.

1.

2.

3.

 

[fokker]

No offence but these are rubbish... none of them are interesting or well composed, the halos look horrible, and they aren't good candidates for HDR to begin with. If you're wanting to experiment, find a suitable subject at least so you can actually see meaningful results, and don't post pictures with terrible halo's when you know that they are there.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Why do you think these needed to be processed as HDR images?

The dynamic range just doesn't look great enough that you'd even need to use the technique on them.

As for the composition, meh. Color and focus are very good though, so technically they're decent photos.

 

[Invictus]

Hey fokker. Sorry for the confusion. I typed in that I did realize the halos and was too lazy to remove them. what I meant was that I wanted some input on the subjects, not the art itself. If any of the critizism was constructive at all, I may as well have bothered to remove the halos if there was any potential to any of the pictures. Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

 

[HikinMike]

Hey fokker. Sorry for the confusion. I typed in that I did realize the halos and was too lazy to remove them. what I meant was that I wanted some input on the subjects, not the art itself. If any of the critizism was constructive at all, I may as well have bothered to remove the halos if there was any potential to any of the pictures. Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

To me, they are all boring. The only one that might be interesting is the second one.

FWIW, I don't care for this type of HDR.

Hope this helps.

 

[fokker]

Hey fokker. Sorry for the confusion. I typed in that I did realize the halos and was too lazy to remove them. what I meant was that I wanted some input on the subjects, not the art itself. If any of the critizism was constructive at all, I may as well have bothered to remove the halos if there was any potential to any of the pictures.

Oh don't apologize, there was no confusion on my part - you are the one who is confused. Let me clarify: Why post pictures that look asolutely horrible because of a processing artifact that you were too lazy (unskilled?) to remove? Is it because you wanted criticism on your HDR technique? If so: it's poor. Is it because you wanted criticism on your composition and exposure? Then why do a half-pie HDR conversion on the photos? What is the point of even asking for c&c at all if you're going to have a cry when you hear an honest opinion? If you're looking for a pat on the back then look elsewhere.

Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

Despite what you say, it seems you are running around telling me this. After all, you did click the link to my flickr page and sift through 4 pages of photos just to find one picture (which I never submitted for c&c and I know isn't perfect, but is still a memorable photo to me of a rare native bird) with some flaws to try and bum me out with and make yourself feel better.

Now let me give you some advice: you can go around defending your lousy photos with crudely constructed personal attacks on those who took the time to actually give an honest appraisal of your work, or you can quit acting like a douche and try to learn something so your next post for c&c is a little bit better. Take the c&c for what it is, learn from it and drop the attitude, or go away and don't come back.

 

[ANDS!]

Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

None of that now. The fellow who responded to you lacks tact and the ability to form constructive criticism, but that doesn't make the underlying critique bad - if you want C&C, at least bring something that you put some effort into. If we know that you simply didn't care to give your best to these HDR's, what are we meant to say?

 

[fiveoboy01]

Hey fokker. Sorry for the confusion. I typed in that I did realize the halos and was too lazy to remove them. what I meant was that I wanted some input on the subjects, not the art itself. If any of the critizism was constructive at all, I may as well have bothered to remove the halos if there was any potential to any of the pictures. Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

:lmao:

You dug through a guy's flickr to bash one of his photos just because you didn't like what he had to say?

You're a tool. Make that a toolshed.

 

[WesVFX]

 

[DubDeez.]

HAHA. :lmao:

 

[Darkhunter139]

Hey fokker. Sorry for the confusion. I typed in that I did realize the halos and was too lazy to remove them. what I meant was that I wanted some input on the subjects, not the art itself. If any of the critizism was constructive at all, I may as well have bothered to remove the halos if there was any potential to any of the pictures.

Oh don't apologize, there was no confusion on my part - you are the one who is confused. Let me clarify: Why post pictures that look asolutely horrible because of a processing artifact that you were too lazy (unskilled?) to remove? Is it because you wanted criticism on your HDR technique? If so: it's poor. Is it because you wanted criticism on your composition and exposure? Then why do a half-pie HDR conversion on the photos? What is the point of even asking for c&c at all if you're going to have a cry when you hear an honest opinion? If you're looking for a pat on the back then look elsewhere.

Now I'm not running around telling you that Tui in a Kowhai Tree is rubbish, and that you should have shot something else to find meaningful results. Obviously it is bland, uncomposed, and more or less a snapshot. contrast too high. but why did you post it? probably the same reason i posted these.

Despite what you say, it seems you are running around telling me this. After all, you did click the link to my flickr page and sift through 4 pages of photos just to find one picture (which I never submitted for c&c and I know isn't perfect, but is still a memorable photo to me of a rare native bird) with some flaws to try and bum me out with and make yourself feel better.

Now let me give you some advice: you can go around defending your lousy photos with crudely constructed personal attacks on those who took the time to actually give an honest appraisal of your work, or you can quit acting like a douche and try to learn something so your next post for c&c is a little bit better. Take the c&c for what it is, learn from it and drop the attitude, or go away and don't come back.

I think its pretty impressive he could not find a picture he could criticize until page four! Good work

 

[RancerDS]

I actually like the composition of the second shot. Though the HDR doesn't really stand out in it, it is still magazine-quality advertisement material. Personal bias doesn't allow me to like the first one, even with it's originality. The last one is just okay, because it took me a while to recognize what it was in the photo (but that's mostly diminishing eyesight).

 

[Weaving Wax]

None of these are great subjects for HDR.

 

[MrRamonG]

This is my new favorite thread.

 

[DerekSalem]

Well I'll start off by agreeing with mostly everybody thus far: There's really no reason to use these pictures as HDR candidates. There's absolutely nothing that requires a bigger range of light than what the camera naturally captures.

Now on to your actual question: The colors are horrendous. *WAY* too contrasty and way too much saturation. Balance same issue: too much saturation and brightness.

Now on to concept: While the concepts are fine (in and of themselves), it really comes back to why you chose them for HDR. I can't, for the life of me, understand why you decided that these pictures required HDR treatment. Let alone that it's a fake HDR image (which rarely works anyway), you're just expanding the range of light for no reason other than to do it.

Making the items pop out is one thing, but that's also what DoF is for (and that looks *much* better and requires more skill).