Some new work for C&C

[DisasterDan]

Here's some of my newest pictures. Havent been on here in awhile, and i have ALOT of catching up to do. Tried my take at landscape shots, which ive never really got the chance to do because of my location. Me and my dad went up near Mt. Whitney for a photo trip, it was a blast! Dad recently picked up a D700 and a 70-200 VRII..completely not knowing how to shoot with it. It was great though showing my dad how to shoot different things and for once i taught HIM something haha. Anywho,
As always, Tear em' up.
#1

QW1K1075_6_7_tonemapped by Daniel Palmerton, on Flickr
#2

QW1K1183_4_5_tonemapped by Daniel Palmerton, on Flickr
#3

QW1K0954_5_6_tonemapped by Daniel Palmerton, on Flickr
#4

QW1K1045_6_7_tonemapped by Daniel Palmerton, on Flickr

 

[honoryourlife]

What did you do to #1? It looks terrible.

 

[DisasterDan]

What did you do to #1? It looks terrible.

Simple three exposure HDR with photomatix, can you go into further detail than just horrible?

 

[cgipson1]

What did you do to #1? It looks terrible.

Simple three exposure HDR with photomatix, can you go into further detail than just horrible?

What were the exposures you used (EV + / -).. and what did you use for the 0 base exposure? Did you spot meter somewhere in the scene, or did you just do a full screen meter? Did you use one of the presets in Photomatix, and if so.. which one

 

[DisasterDan]

What did you do to #1? It looks terrible.

Simple three exposure HDR with photomatix, can you go into further detail than just horrible?

What were the exposures you used (EV + / -).. and what did you use for the 0 base exposure? Did you spot meter somewhere in the scene, or did you just do a full screen meter?

+1, 0, and -1 with a full screen meter

 

[tyler_h]

Tonemapping and HDR don't always work for images. I think that may be where honoryourlife is coming from. I thought the second was worse in that regard though; looking at the sky and water, but the foliage also has a bit of the HDR look. Some may be fans though.

Great sky in the last. A foreground with a bit more context might help the image. The sky could use a little more contrast if you ask me; would add a bit more drama.

You should also look at getting your sensor cleaned. There are three rather noticeable stop on the top right in one and four.

 

[honoryourlife]

What did you do to #1? It looks terrible.

Simple three exposure HDR with photomatix, can you go into further detail than just horrible?

Look at the cliffs in the rear, they look shot to hell. The clouds look like cartoons.

It looks horrible, at least to me.

Whats the originals look like? Post those.

 

[DisasterDan]

Tonemapping and HDR don't always work for images. I think that may be where honoryourlife is coming from. I thought the second was worse in that regard though; looking at the sky and water, but the foliage also has a bit of the HDR look. Some may be fans though.

Great sky in the last. A foreground with a bit more context might help the image. The sky could use a little more contrast if you ask me; would add a bit more drama.

You should also look at getting your sensor cleaned. There are three rather noticeable stop on the top right in one and four.

Wow i didnt even notice that! And yeah the waterfall, sky is blown and was windy so the leaves created ghosting. I completely get where the hdr doesnt work for everything, but are we talking about *real hdr or *fake looking hdr's. With 1,2, and 3 i tried to keep it as real as possible.

 

[cgipson1]

Simple three exposure HDR with photomatix, can you go into further detail than just horrible?

What were the exposures you used (EV + / -).. and what did you use for the 0 base exposure? Did you spot meter somewhere in the scene, or did you just do a full screen meter?

+1, 0, and -1 with a full screen meter

gotcha... I would have done a sequence of 5 shots (if not more).. at 1 EV separation. Usually if I only do three shots, I will do a -2, 0, +2... gives you more range to work with.

Foreground is too dark, big loss of detail... midframe is too bright and overly saturated (or so it looks..). Sky isn't to bad.. but still way over saturated....

I don't know what you are shooting, but I assume you have some spot metering capability? Spot the highs and the lows, and then count how many stops that is... and shoot at least that many shots with 1 EV change on each. This helps to make sure you get all the detail there is available.. and also give you a wider baseline that you can work with to make the photo look good, without looking over processed.

 

[DisasterDan]

What were the exposures you used (EV + / -).. and what did you use for the 0 base exposure? Did you spot meter somewhere in the scene, or did you just do a full screen meter?

+1, 0, and -1 with a full screen meter

gotcha... I would have done a sequence of 5 shots (if not more).. at 1 EV separation. Usually if I only do three shots, I will do a -2, 0, +2... gives you more range to work with.

Foreground is too dark, big loss of detail... midframe is too bright and overly saturated (or so it looks..). Sky isn't to bad.. but still way over saturated....

I don't know what you are shooting, but I assume you have some spot metering capability? Spot the highs and the lows, and then count how many stops that is... and shoot at least that many shots with 1 EV change on each. This helps to make sure you get all the detail there is available.. and also give you a wider baseline that you can work with to make the photo look good, without looking over processed.

I will write that down! haha thank you

 

[honoryourlife]

Good luck for the next ones.

 

[tyler_h]

Wow i didnt even notice that! And yeah the waterfall, sky is blown and was windy so the leaves created ghosting. I completely get where the hdr doesnt work for everything, but are we talking about *real hdr or *fake looking hdr's. With 1,2, and 3 i tried to keep it as real as possible.

Real and Fake can both "not work". I'm not a big fan of fake looking HDR, but I do like their use when done well with a subject which compliments it such as some urbex shots. I've tried a fair number of HDR's, going for a realistic result, and I found I generally like the results I can get with one image (normally the 0EV image but might be one with a small (<1EV) offset) more than the results I can get with HDR processing.

Even for real processing, 2 and 3 have distinct white and black areas, which I am guessing would have had a lot more detail when viewed with your eyes. I don't think HDR works well on foliage, which hurts the second shot. The third looks like you could have captured that in one image; I can't really see what the additional frames would have been adding.