Thoughts on Processing here?

[fjrabon]

DSC_0207 by Franklin Rabon, on Flickr

 

[agp]

A little too much HDR for me. And if the dog is the subject, I'd light that more than the hills.

 

[waday]

Agree, the processing seems a bit much. Maybe dial back a tad?

Also, cute dog.

 

[fjrabon]

There's no HDR. It's a tone curve (to fit in the scene's dynamic range) + shadow recovery + grad ND + clarity.

 

[agp]

Without getting into the pedantry that is that what you described is, in fact, HDR, I was simply referring to the looks of the photo.

 

[limr]

Well, whatever was done to it, I agree that it was a bit too much.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Without getting into the pedantry that is that what you described is, in fact, HDR, I was simply referring to the looks of the photo.

No. HDR by it's nature requires more than one image to capture a higher dynamic range than the sensor is capable of recording. This image is simple a tonemapped single image.

 

[fjrabon]

Without getting into the pedantry that is that what you described is, in fact, HDR, I was simply referring to the looks of the photo.

I appreciate your feedback on the image, and I was just clarifying that there was no HDR used, or anything like HDR, I didn't mean it to lessen your feedback, which was appreciated. I only clarified it so people wouldn't start talking about what adjustments to make in the HDR conversion, since no HDR conversion was made.

Shadow recovery isn't HDR, shadow recovery (or the version I used here) is simply moving the black point. A curve isn't HDR. Clarity isn't HDR. and a grad ND isn't HDR.

I get what you mean by "looks like HDR", which is why I felt the need to clarify what was done. But no, it wasn't HDR, or kind of HDR, unless the term HDR has no meaning whatsoever. I didn't even do "fake HDR" and make multiple images with different exposure levels and blend them. This was straight only one image. I think the HDR "look" simply came from the combo of the grad ND, the black point adjustment and the curve adjustment. I'm trying to figure out where to balance the multiple adjustments to give the foreground the lightness it needs, while not getting into "looks fake" territory, thus kind of wondering which adjustments tipped it over the edge, and I didn't want "HDR" to be a red herring.

 

[fjrabon]

Without getting into the pedantry that is that what you described is, in fact, HDR, I was simply referring to the looks of the photo.

No. HDR by it's nature requires more than one image to capture a higher dynamic range than the sensor is capable of recording. This image is simple a tonemapped single image.

it's also not tonemapped (or at least what people normally mean by tonemapped, since I suppose in some sense a curve adjustment is tonemapping, but it's not tonemapping in the sense of what HDR programs do).

 

[Scatterbrained]

On a side note, if the dog is the subject, I'd at least crop out some of that sky to give the dog a bit more prominence. .

 

[fjrabon]

Here's the original Raw image, which I think sorta looks "HDR"-y as is, just very flat, so you see what I started with:

DSC_0207 (1) by Franklin Rabon, on Flickr

 

[fjrabon]

On a side note, if the dog is the subject, I'd at least crop out some of that sky to give the dog a bit more prominence. .
View attachment 102299

Dog isn't so much the subject as a part of the overall scene. Sort of a live foreground element. I don't love the balance in the image, as it's right side heavy, but I'm more just trying to get a handle on dealing with the wide dynamic range that also manages to be flat in the original image, while not making it look fake.

 

[limr]

Is it just me or does the dog look like he's been shopped in, even in the original image?

 

[fjrabon]

Is it just me or does the dog look like he's been shopped in, even in the original image?

I think it's the way her fur curls at the tips along her legs and stomach, which catches the very soft cloud cover light and thus kind of givers her a soft highlight underline along the bottom. Plus the super soft light means you don't really have a defined shadow of her, which is fairly typical of lazy super-imposing with photoshop, just here it's how the light was. Plus the wide angle effect is noticeable on her, but not the ground she's standing on, since it's just ground.

Come to think of it, I think a lot of the sort of "overdone" look to the image comes from the fact that the foreground is in ultra flat, soft cloud cover light, while the background is in spots in full open sunlight.

 

[limr]

Yeah, I think it's the lines along her foreleg and belly that make her look plopped into the image - they're more noticeable on the enlarged image on Flickr.