Sunset HDR C&C

[DirtyDFeckers]

Hey guys, I'm new to HDR. Comments are welcome, thanks.

 

[Bynx]

Everything is pretty good except the grass. It needs to be toned back a bit with black and magenta. Nice composition.

 

[oldmacman]

I love those clouds, but then again, I have a thing for clouds. I spent all last summer shooting cloudscapes.

+1 on the grass. It's too uniform in tone and the wrong colour for the time of day you are shooting.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you could achieve similar (but, imo, better) results with an ND grad filter. I have tried HDR in landscapes and have found that dramatic shots usually don't occur in ideal HDR conditions. With wind blowing and leaves and water moving, you get odd halos, ghosting and shadows. For example, there seems to be an odd dark edge on the top right side of the grass. Visually it doesn't make sense because it is closer to the light source than the brightest green in the image.

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

Does the grass look a little too "radioactive?"

 

[oldmacman]

Does the grass look a little too "radioactive?"

Yeah. If I was just looking at everything but the grass, it wouldn't read as an HDR image. The best HDR images are the ones that don't give it away.

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

Does the grass look a little too "radioactive?"

Yeah. If I was just looking at everything but the grass, it wouldn't read as an HDR image. The best HDR images are the ones that don't give it away.

This is just your opinion. Fact is, anyone who knows photography will know an HDR when they see it, that's the point, to expose a dynamic range that can't be exposed by a single, untonemapped image. I agree that the grass is a problem, but if I didn't want it to "look like" an HDR, why would I waste my time doing it?

 

[Bynx]

Im not sure whether the grass was a problem or you wanted the problem so it would look like HDR. But here I just addressed the grass and darkened it. Nothing else changed and didnt need to be. Nice shot.

 

[oldmacman]

Does the grass look a little too "radioactive?"

Yeah. If I was just looking at everything but the grass, it wouldn't read as an HDR image. The best HDR images are the ones that don't give it away.

This is just your opinion. Fact is, anyone who knows photography will know an HDR when they see it, that's the point, to expose a dynamic range that can't be exposed by a single, untonemapped image. I agree that the grass is a problem, but if I didn't want it to "look like" an HDR, why would I waste my time doing it?

You do HDR for the higher dynamic range. Your eyes see a higher range than a camera can see. Using HDR to extend the dynamic range just levels the playing field. It doesn't have to get that ethereal look of unnatural light.

You're right though, many people like that filtered appearance when you push the limits of what the software can do. Those images tend to have that filtered look throughout the image. In this case, the OP seemed to be balancing the scene by using the HDR, so that the grass looked out of place next to the sky.

You're also right that it is my opinion, so I will modify my original statement to: IMO, the best HDR shots are the ones that don't give it away. For the record I have HDR shots and I have seen images from others that are difficult to tell unless you know you should be looking for HDR. The HDR ends up looking like you brought your lighting with you to fill shadows.

It doesn't mean you can't like the other stuff, it's just not processing that is pleasing to me because it doesn't represent the scene I'm trying to capture.

 

[Provo]

My edit take on the ops image
Hue/Sat, Brightness/Contrast, Curves Adjustment, Hue/Sat, Hue/Sat, Unsharp Mask 23%