Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

Magic hour


geek-accountant
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK, so, where to start. I like all the shots. While I do feel the HDR is just a tad bit overdone in some of them, I think they're actually more real looking than the 'natural' shot. I think one of the problems people have with HDR is that they've become so used to 'natural' photos they no longer even realize that the photo doesn't really look anything like what their minds saw when they were at the location. People have just gotten used to completely unnatural looking photographs.

 

In both HDR shots of the wide expanse of lawn, I find the grass is somewhat overly tone mapped, but they still are better than the natural shot. It would be nice to see a Nik version of it — Nik seems to do grass better for some reason.

 

I find the Nik version of the city hall shot better than the photomatix one: the grass and the city hall building both look more natural.

 

On the other hand, I find the photomatix version of the portrait sidewalk shot more natural, especially the sky. The Nik version doesn't look as natural.

 

And thanks for posting the natural shot; it really shows why someone would use HDR.

 

Suggestion: give each shot a name or number so we can refer to them easier :)

 

Keep it up; I'm really enjoying your shots. One of these days I'm going to have to do some of my own :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ImTheTypeOfGuy

    3

  • geek-accountant

    10

  • ikon

    6

  • Joe_Miner

    2

For these, I was shooting a 5 set bracket at +1 stop. So you get the following:

0EV

-1EV

-2EV

+1EV

+2EV

 

 

And yes, always in RAW!

 

 

 

Mike,

 

Those are awesome shots.

 

How many bracketed exposures are you using to create the one HDR image?

 

I'm assuming they are all shot in RAW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this is why photography is an art and not a science. In both examples, I like the Photomatix version better. They have better tonal transition, the color is a little closer to what I actually saw and there is less noise. Yes, the grass is a little over processed, but that has more to do with my processing skills, although I actually like it that way better.

 

One thing I liked better about the Nik images was how it handled the details in the brick wall. Look at the vertical image and you will see the difference.

 

As you mentioned, the HDR shots are actually closer to what I really saw, although many people think it looks like a painting. The single exposure image looks nothing like what I saw.

 

Also, did anyone notice some of the things I removed? It's hard to see because the single image is so dark, but there are a few things. I should post the single image from the vertical shot, there are a LOT of things I removed from that one.

 

Some may feel that removing things is cheating, but remember this is art and not a news story. Post processing is nearly as important as taking the actual image. Even Ansel Adams did tons of post processing, well what he could do in his day.

 

 

 

 

OK, so, where to start. I like all the shots. While I do feel the HDR is just a tad bit overdone in some of them, I think they're actually more real looking than the 'natural' shot. I think one of the problems people have with HDR is that they've become so used to 'natural' photos they no longer even realize that the photo doesn't really look anything like what their minds saw when they were at the location. People have just gotten used to completely unnatural looking photographs.

 

In both HDR shots of the wide expanse of lawn, I find the grass is somewhat overly tone mapped, but they still are better than the natural shot. It would be nice to see a Nik version of it — Nik seems to do grass better for some reason.

 

I find the Nik version of the city hall shot better than the photomatix one: the grass and the city hall building both look more natural.

 

On the other hand, I find the photomatix version of the portrait sidewalk shot more natural, especially the sky. The Nik version doesn't look as natural.

 

And thanks for posting the natural shot; it really shows why someone would use HDR.

 

Suggestion: give each shot a name or number so we can refer to them easier :)

 

Keep it up; I'm really enjoying your shots. One of these days I'm going to have to do some of my own :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I know, asking me, Mr. jpeg2RAW guy himself if I shot those in RAW. But vinylfreak is kind of crazy like that. Heck, I heard he had a pretty wild after the meet-up party. :)

 

 

Honestly, the nerve of some people, asking a question like that! :)

 

Here is the single image from the vertical shot. This is at 0 EV and is straight out of the camera, so you can see all the things I removed.

 

suwaneesunset-single2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this is why photography is an art and not a science. In both examples, I like the Photomatix version better. They have better tonal transition, the color is a little closer to what I actually saw and there is less noise. Yes, the grass is a little over processed, but that has more to do with my processing skills, although I actually like it that way better.

 

One thing I liked better about the Nik images was how it handled the details in the brick wall. Look at the vertical image and you will see the difference.

 

As you mentioned, the HDR shots are actually closer to what I really saw, although many people think it looks like a painting. The single exposure image looks nothing like what I saw.

 

Also, did anyone notice some of the things I removed? It's hard to see because the single image is so dark, but there are a few things. I should post the single image from the vertical shot, there are a LOT of things I removed from that one.

 

Some may feel that removing things is cheating, but remember this is art and not a news story. Post processing is nearly as important as taking the actual image. Even Ansel Adams did tons of post processing, well what he could do in his day.

 

 

 

I originally noticed that you had removed the trashcan. Going back and looking at it, I notice a lot more that is added than removed. Some of the people are ghosted. I also notice you removed a leaf or something by the light pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this is why photography is an art and not a science. In both examples, I like the Photomatix version better. They have better tonal transition, the color is a little closer to what I actually saw and there is less noise. Yes, the grass is a little over processed, but that has more to do with my processing skills, although I actually like it that way better.

 

One thing I liked better about the Nik images was how it handled the details in the brick wall. Look at the vertical image and you will see the difference.

 

As you mentioned, the HDR shots are actually closer to what I really saw, although many people think it looks like a painting. The single exposure image looks nothing like what I saw.

 

Also, did anyone notice some of the things I removed? It's hard to see because the single image is so dark, but there are a few things. I should post the single image from the vertical shot, there are a LOT of things I removed from that one.

 

Some may feel that removing things is cheating, but remember this is art and not a news story. Post processing is nearly as important as taking the actual image. Even Ansel Adams did tons of post processing, well what he could do in his day.

 

 

 

 

 

I noticed the garbage can was gone ;)

 

And there's nothing wrong with adding, removing, combining, enhancing, or any other mod. The aim is to get a great result. With the advent of digital photography, and the incredicle software tools available now, I would even argue that post processing is more important that the original shot. It's amazing what you can rescue or tease out or enhance in photos today.

 

And you're right; Ansel spent days or even weeks working out the exact darkroom recipe for a specific photograph so that he could then print many copies exactly the same. He left a treasure trove of them for his decendants to sell. It was their inheritance really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would even argue that post processing is more important that the original shot.

 

 

But without the original, there is nothing to "post process".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I added anything. The ghosting is due to people moving and the blending of the images. Photomatix does a decent job of removing some ghosting but not all of it. I debating on spending more time with the photo and removing the worst of the ghosting (they are in a difficult spot to clone out), but decided to leave them in for now.

 

As of right now, both the vertical and the one with City Hall will be included in my 5 shot submission to our towns annual photo contest. But since the submission deadline is December 31st, I will be waiting until the last day to see if I can get anything better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...