Saturation/Processing feedback pls

[FrankfurtDave]

Hi All,



Hoping people could give me some feedback on the processing of these two HDR's. I always try to keep them from looking too HDR. I can't decide on my calibrated monitor whether i have gone too far.

1. Old Bridge in Wetzlar

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5429716391_305aabc3d3_b.jpg

2. Marina in Frankfurt
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5430331652_acdf4534f8_b.jpg


Obviously all C&C on all topics greatfully received.

Thanks alot,


Dave

[NickRadford]

the top photo is spot on, really great.

)Now this is just me) but i feel like the HDR could be pulled back a tad on the 2nd one. :)

[argyle]

First one looks good, but on my monitor I see the faint traces of haloing around the treetops. Like I said, they're faint but still noticeable. Other than that, its a good HDR rendition...much better that what's typically posted as HDR.

As far as the second image goes, I'd agree with pulling back slightly on the processing (granted, its all subjective anyway).

[Ed Harp]

I like the first one, on my monitor it looks saturated, but not overly so; wouldn't want to add any though. The One of the potential problems with HDR is actually using that process when in fact PP on a single capture would produce better results. What I see in the 2nd shot is too narrow of a dynamic range; I think you would have done fine without HDR here, or you might have tried a different HDR profile. Photomatix has several HDR profiles letting you choose your most desired effect.
It's interesting that both images have similar compositional lines.

[Spike44]

Processing is quite good on the first.
You could go in and burn in more detail under the bridge left side and under the house. Your RAW should have this detail so alternatively, you could mask it in.
The 2nd needs local contrast big time otherwise is good.....you are approaching a blown highlight on the left sky.
If you don't like the over-HDRI, I agree with the others that you could have achieved the same/better with a single RAW.

EDIT: For comment below - LOCAL contrast people...not just contrast...there is a difference.

[cyclekraft]

I like both. Both are the type of HDR I prefer, which is not the "clown puke" variety. I actually like image #2 better for it's low contrast. I feel the softer colors lend to the overall mood of the image. More contast would change its feeling, IMO. Good work!

[Crystal W Photography]

1. Good job. Doesn't even look HDR
2. Looks HDR, but still a good photo. I think it's a little too dark, but I love the colors in the clouds.

[FrankfurtDave]

Thanks for all the great feedback, is interesting to see the different opinions and views.

For me it was always the 2nd image that I was more concerned about and that seems to be the concensus here. When I get home I will try again with a little HDR and also the straightforward RAW conversion.

The idea of the burns on the 1st image sounds good as well as I know the original post HDR was a little lacking in detail in certain places.

Again thanks for the opinions/advice so far :-))

[Zebedee123]

I really like both images compositionally. Love the colours in the first too - but the haloing around the trees would annoy me if it were mine. The second one just seems a bit flat - but again it's going to be a great image!

[corkneyfonz]

What I find irritating is the apartment buildings on the left of the second image as it's very halo like. I'd be tempted just to clone this area with the darker sky. Other than my wanting to add a small curves and levels adj, these are both of a very high standard.