Why don't people care for this

[silversldr]

I have this picture in a few groups at Flickr. I have had a less then expected reaction. Is there something wrong with this that I am not seeing.

I know the frame is not needed. i put this on after I found a coupl eof actions for frames. i got a little carried away putting frames on things. Anyways here it is and please tell me what is wrong....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2256/2470617133_cf532b4099_b.jpg

[derky82]

it's hard to say... I, personally don't care for the whole HDR-look craze that has erupted as of lately. I've only seen a very limited number of images that benefited from this kind of treatment. A teacher of mine used to always remind us that the shot has to be interesting BEFORE the effects are added. No amount of selective coloring, framing, dynamic range, "artistic blur" or texturing will save an image that isn't intresting to start with.

That said, i'm not saying your image is BAD, there might just not be a lot grabbing peoples attention. Keep working, keep sharing and most imortantly, keep having fun!

- Derek

[canonloader]

I kind of like it, but I will be critical. The artifact around the sun-flare is off-putting. The color is just not meshing with the rest of it. Too many halos. I am more and more critical of halos now that I know they can be kept out of a shot fairly easily. And the palm trees are black silhouettes. In HDR, that should be fixed to show the detail and colors. Not that they don't have a certain appeal, but I am getting use to HDR and expect to see the details and correct color and luminosity.

On the other hand, maybe everybody was just having a bad day and didn't feel like saying anything. :)

[sandpiper]

A lot of people don't like the cartoon look that comes with overcooked HDR shots. Personally, I think it's OK with the right subject but I don't think this suits the look. I would have thought that it would make a great image as a proper photograph, rather than a digitally cooked up cartoon image.

I feel that HDR like this works well when you set out to do it from the start and get all the conditions right, but many people just take a random image and decide to slap it through HDR software for the sake of it, rather than because they feel that it has something to offer that particular image.

A beautiful sunset works because of the richness of the tones and the gradual shift in colour, all that has been lost in the HDR process and the image has come out flat, dark and unnatural.

This sort of thing is very subjective though, like any art form, and you should create what you want to create (unless working for a client of course). If YOU like it, why worry about other people's opinions. They will always be split over this sort of image, some will love it and most will hate it. That's the nature of the HDR beast.

[CameraBuff]

It's cool but a little dark, missing some details.

[TheHoff]

Flickr tends to like more straight photography and less Photoshop work. I'm sure if you put it in the HDR groups it might get some good reaction but going into "Sunsets" it is likely going to get a lot of comments saying it is over-processed.

[silversldr]

Thank you all for your honest critiques. I have asked for critiques on here and have yet to get any real critiques. That is up until now.

This is one of those times where I did not set out with HDR in mind. Just about every other picture I took this outing was bracketed, in order to HDR. For some reason I didn't bracket here. This shot is from a single RAW and I think I went to +4/-4 at increments of one.

After running those through Photomatix, I was not happy with the results. I couldn't get the halos down and frankly it still looked a little flat. I downloaded a set of actions called Midnight and used the Midnight Black. This was the final product.

I have become addicted to HDRs. I have been trying to do them for a while but in my eyes I have not done one right. All of them so far are tonemapped. This is one of my images that are the closest to HDR.

Thanks again for your critiques.

[thekid24]

Hoff has a good point.

Different strokes for different folks.

Here, POTN is more about technical perfection, some artistic aspects are appreciated but if ya go too far outside the box youll get a common dislike.

Its all good though. Have fun with whatever youre doing, its better that way;)

[silversldr]

I am still fairly new with photography and use flickr more to get my pictures out and seen. If I get a good reaction or I don't get the reaction I think an image deserves, like this one, I bring it here. i don't like to waste peoples time with critiques of technically poor shots.

[opus13]

really? it's overkill, and looks entirely unnatural.

the best received HDR images are those that are used to compensate for under and over exposed regions of an image. when you over-over-process an image, it becomes more of a surreal exercise, rather then recovery of data that normally wouldn't be seen in a standard photograph.

HDR was originally intended for lighting 3d scenes with actual light values that LDR (8+16bit) images couldn't access. it was only after that photographers got hold of the tech and started to utilize it to essentially 'repair' lost data in an image.

the posted image is not really repairing an image anymore... if anything it is destroying it with complete artificiality and artifacts.

[Mr Limpett]

I'm a little disapointed in the foreground.
There's not a lot of interest there, when
I first look at the photo, I first see sky,
then my eye is drawn down to the palms,
then to the blank expance of sand. I want
something more down there.

[canonloader]

HDR was originally intended for lighting 3d scenes with actual light values that LDR (8+16bit) images couldn't access.
You might be surprised what HDR was developed for, and when. Would you believe the 1930's? Tone mapping came along in 1993.

"High Dynamic Range Imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging) was originally developed in the 1930s and 1940s by Charles Wyckoff. Wyckoff's detailed pictures of nuclear explosions appeared on the cover of Life magazine in the mid 1940s. The process of tone mapping together with bracketed exposures of normal digital images, giving the end result a high, often exaggerated dynamic range, was first reported in 1993...."

[tmcman]

Some people think it's wrong in principle to change a photo into a painting.
But it's not. It's art and you can do what you think is good.
Beyond that, what you might do differently:
I'd say I agree that the darks have become sillhouettes
and particularly the front tree has a jarring halo around it.
Thanks for sharing.

[Chris]

The first thing my eye was drawn to was the huge halo around the closest palm. I think it needs to be toned down and I agree with others about the fore ground element lacking.
But isn't it fun to play with HDR? Endless possibilities.

[silversldr]

I think my monitor is all out of whack......

I can barely see the halo on the tree and only then if I really concentrate on that tree. I guess it is time to break down and by something to calibrate it. Thanks again guys and gals

[zacker]

i like it, its just too dark, i love the trees and the sun light coming through the clouds but i think the over all scene needs to be lighter..

[ArcticShooter]

i like it, its just too dark, i love the trees and the sun light coming through the clouds but i think the over all scene needs to be lighter..

I must agree with zacker. How does the original image look like?

[silversldr]

Here is the original.

[ArcticShooter]

wow, the original is very nice. If you had done auto bracketing the HDR would have been amazing. I have never done HDR from only one image so I haven't looked into how it's done.

[fubarhouse]

I love it, doesn't look overdone, however if I was to comment about the photo, I'd suggest it be slightly brighter, and perhaps take out the flare

[Picture North Carolina]

Because it's a beautiful, relaxing, pleasing setting (place) and you made it look dark, threatening and gloomy.