Ancient Cathedral - fish eye, 1 shot HDR

Processing looks really good. I also like the composition very much but the fish-eye kills it for me.

mrbubbles wrote in post #12948019
Processing looks really good. I also like the composition very much but the fish-eye kills it for me.

But that's a fish-eye for you!

David

Woodworker wrote in post #12948043
But that's a fish-eye for you!

David

Fish-eyes are great to have. I have one myself and I love using it. For me personally though I think I would have rather seen it rectilinearly. That is my opinion.

Beautiful photograph, I agree that I would have liked to see it with out the fish-eye, but very nice work

mrbubbles wrote in post #12948087
Fish-eyes are great to have. I have one myself and I love using it. For me personally though I think I would have rather seen it rectilinearly. That is my opinion.

I somewhat agree... unfortunately, without the wider lens, not as many interesting components of the cathedral would have been in frame. Therefore for me, it works from this perspective in an interesting way.

I fully do agree... I would also like to see this image rectilinearly, possibly in a form of a pano.

Regards, Frank

Mike Jag wrote in post #12947795
This is in the cathedral of Amiens, France, built in the 11th century. The photo is a 1-shot HDR processed with Photomatix and Photoshop.

Nice work! The one thing I found a bit distracting was the cylinder (light fixture) on the upper right of the image, smack in the middle of a round stained glass window. Candidate for "clone-out"?

Regards, Frank

From my point of view (and personal taste) i love this shot with the fisheye i think it gives much more of a dramatic feel and gives the impression of immense scale, im left wondering how high that ceiling actualy was?

and i agree with the below quoted statement entirely.

Mike Jag wrote in post #12947795
On Flickr here, http://www.flickr.com …6042963507/in/p​hotostream

This is in the cathedral of Amiens, France, built in the 11th century. The photo is a 1-shot HDR processed with Photomatix and Photoshop.

It may be tonemapped, but its not an HDR.

My process is to save the RAW file as a Jpeg at -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2 EV through Lightroom and then merge the exposures in Photomatix.

Processing is a little bit strong for me, but you arent getting too many crazy halos which is good. Compositionally, I feel like the sculpture and hall make the photo feel like its cut in half. Choosing more of a distinctive third to put either in would have made it a stronger picture

Mike Jag wrote in post #12950840
My process is to save the RAW file as a Jpeg at -2, -1, 0, 1 and 2 EV through Lightroom and then merge the exposures in Photomatix.

Understood. But since you're relying on a single exposure to "create" the additional +/- exposures, you simply don't have the dynamic range. Doesn't matter how many exposures that you "create" from the single exposure...you'll never exceed the amount of dynamic range found in the original exposure. All you're basically doing is tonemapping a single image, with no more DR than the original.

i agree with the cone thing but the fish eye is too much for me have you tried throwing it in lightroom and using the lens correction tool.?

Very nice. The fisheye doesn't kill it for me.

argyle wrote in post #12952217
Understood. But since you're relying on a single exposure to "create" the additional +/- exposures, you simply don't have the dynamic range. Doesn't matter how many exposures that you "create" from the single exposure...you'll never exceed the amount of dynamic range found in the original exposure. All you're basically doing is tonemapping a single image, with no more DR than the original.

I was under the impression that a RAW file saves 2 exposures worth of information, since it can reveal details in the shadows at +2 and in the highlights at -2 that cannot be seen at 0. Are you saying that this post processing bracketing method is pointless because Photomatix does the same thing if you feed it a single RAW file?