HDR - Which looks better?

1. The original HDR
2. Same, but with added contrast

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

To me, I feel like there is more dynamic in your second photo. Try some post-post production, maybe up the contrast, blacks, or vibrance to further tune these but these are really well composed shots. Good work

i like the first one its more pleasing to my eyes

From my personal viewpoint, HDR was one of the things that brought me back from 15 years away from photography, my last days were spent on film, seeing modern digital techniques blew my mind, namely HDR. I remember some ppl saying they didnt like it, at the time I couldnt understand why, it looked fab to an old timer if you will lol. I do understand what they meant, even after only a few months back into photography, it looks cheap and nasty to me (most HDR in general). I think your pic Arch would look a lot better processed 'normally' as opposed to HDR, the composition is pleasing and I think it could be great processed 'normal' fashion. Dont listen to me tbh, I been away so long, and feel a newb now, but if I was giving a verdict, I guess that would be it

Here's the original and a b/w version.. I usually don't use HDR, but wanted to try it out. I think I like the hdr version better

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

kevincinco wrote in post #12930400
To me, I feel like there is more dynamic in your second photo. Try some post-post production, maybe up the contrast, blacks, or vibrance to further tune these but these are really well composed shots. Good work

Thanks

Immediate response was the first one... after a moment... still the first one.

Good composition.

David

I like the first one better. Nice comp too. The 2nd one is a little much for me. The halo around the palm tree bothers me a bit

#1 HDR FTW!!

I like the first but I prefer much less HDR
Try reducing opacity to give a more natural look

HDR often turns nice phots into something artificial.... Apart from exposure and saturation gradations I don't see much difference between #1 and #2. But both are no longer "naturallly" looking.
I think HDR technology should work towards correcting exposure extremes to make "out of dynamic range" photos look more natural. Not to create aquarel paintings....

One of the most common problems with HDR attempts is runaway saturation in one or more channels or color bands....Drop the yellow saturation in the first shot by 50% and the green by 20%.....suddenly your image starts to look like it was from earth and not from Venus.

The HDR processing software has done the processing for you. You simply cannot compare the original WITHOUT any processing (be it adjustments or effects) to the tone mapped image. Apples and oranges.
Did you shoot RAW?...if so, you could improve the original quite a bit...start with the sky.
I think the tone mapped images are too far....not natural.

i like the 2nd