Natural Looking HDR

J-Blake wrote in post #18221776
Thanks for the comments and likes everyone. After I posted this, I was looking at it and decided I didn't like the sky and began playing around with another version. It took a lot more effort than I thought, but I finally was able to get this. If you're willing to share, I'd really appreciate your opinion as to which version you like better.

Hosted photo: posted by J-Blake in
./showthread.php?p=182​21776&i=i263480476
forum: HDR Creation

I prefer the land of the first and the sky of the second one. The glow of sunset on the scene is almost lost on the second one.

I believe I like the first one but it is not possible to discriminate accurately at the current resolutions. In the second rendering the transitions in the sky look as if they could have become too abrupt. I am also concerned about a loss of detail in the shadows, however this could be due to a whole range of variables. Though I have two monitors, both are supposedly calibrated but they differ and on both I can see blacks and whites where before I could see colour and texture. In fact looking again at the sky the band of white looks very flat and the top transition very abrupt.

But at full resolution all may be well and be far more effective than your original rendering which isn't making full use of the tonal range.

PS: Just some thoughts, I am very new to landscape photography and could be as "off base" as my two monitors who rarely agree on anything!

Snowyman wrote in post #18222335
I believe I like the first one but it is not possible to discriminate accurately at the current resolutions. In the second rendering the transitions in the sky look as if they could have become too abrupt. I am also concerned about a loss of detail in the shadows, however this could be due to a whole range of variables. Though I have two monitors, both are supposedly calibrated but they differ and on both I can see blacks and whites where before I could see colour and texture. In fact looking again at the sky the band of white looks very flat and the top transition very abrupt.

But at full resolution all may be well and be far more effective than your original rendering which isn't making full use of the tonal range.

PS: Just some thoughts, I am very new to landscape photography and could be as "off base" as my two monitors who rarely agree on anything!

My goodness - if such analysis is necessary where does enjoyment and creativity come into this? Just my two cents!

roseyposey wrote in post #18222340
My goodness - if such analysis is necessary where does enjoyment and creativity come into this? Just my two cents!

I was simply answering J-Blake's request and attempted give some explanation of my reasoning.

J-Blake wrote in post #18221776
If you're willing to share, I'd really appreciate your opinion as to which version you like better.

You see, when you go into the details of commenting, and actually comparing, this is a better way (in my opinion) to understand the looks of the photography or art for that matter even better, this is a good way to learn. Likes and dislikes are way too overworn statements, but trying to understand why you like or not is what makes all the difference for both parties!
Thanks Snowyman for your thoughts, I really appreciate your work in comparing, and of course, thank you J-Blake, for the real effort in these beautiful landscapes! This work has inspired to go out and take more photographs!

All, thanks so much for the great feedback and overall you're comments mimic my own feelings about each. That said, it's great to hear it from others because sometimes when I'm working at something too long I lose my opinion in the details. Thanks again!

Wilt wrote in post #18221779
how about posting ONE exposure from each of the HDR photos, so we can see what 'completely unmanipulated with HDR' looks like, too?

Sure Wilt, here you go. One series SOOC:

bpiper7 wrote in post #18221783
Tough one. There are bits of each that are more appealing. Overall I think the first is more "natural" looking and I'm inclined to vote for that.

Thanks Bill!

David Arbogast wrote in post #18221787
After comparing the too, I can appreciate why you prefer the sky in the second one. I do too. As such I like your second effort even more. (Either image is fantastic though).

Thanks David!

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18221792
I'd be more than pleased with either. Both are stellar.

Thanks MedicineMan!

Intheswamp wrote in post #18221919
In the original image the sky gives me the impression of a halo effect above the near rock structure that softens the top edge of the rock. The second image has a more crisp, defining edge to the top of the rock structure. I like that more defined edge. But, I like the hazier atmosphere surrounding the rock formation in the background of the first image.

Ed

Thanks Ed! Your comment is well thought out and expressed. The halo is the main thing I don't like about the first one. It came as the result of my pushing the cloud color over/through the North Window which to me adds to that half of the photo, but the halo itself I don't care for at all.

C Scott IV wrote in post #18221950
I prefer the land of the first and the sky of the second one. The glow of sunset on the scene is almost lost on the second one.

Thanks Charles! I wonder if the loss you're referring is made worse by the crop which is heavier in the first making the sunset larger relative to the image size?

Snowyman wrote in post #18222335
I believe I like the first one but it is not possible to discriminate accurately at the current resolutions. In the second rendering the transitions in the sky look as if they could have become too abrupt. I am also concerned about a loss of detail in the shadows, however this could be due to a whole range of variables. Though I have two monitors, both are supposedly calibrated but they differ and on both I can see blacks and whites where before I could see colour and texture. In fact looking again at the sky the band of white looks very flat and the top transition very abrupt.

But at full resolution all may be well and be far more effective than your original rendering which isn't making full use of the tonal range.

PS: Just some thoughts, I am very new to landscape photography and could be as "off base" as my two monitors who rarely agree on anything!

Thanks Snowy! I'm not sure what you mean by "discriminate accurately". By transition, I take it you're referring to the halo and I agree with you. So far (anyway), I've been unable to find a satisfactory way of removing it or lessening it's impact without negatively impacting the image. Again, could you elaborate on what you mean by "In the second rendering the transitions in the sky look as if they could have become too abrupt"? The only thing I can think this means is was I too heavy handed with the burning tool in the sky? The second half of your first paragraph is lost on me and I'm not sure what you're saying. Thanks again, and if you care to clarify I'm very interested in your comments.

jp3ters wrote in post #18222402
... and of course, thank you J-Blake, for the real effort in these beautiful landscapes! This work has inspired to go out and take more photographs!

Thank you jp3ters! If I've inspired you in anyway, my work here is done. 8^)

J-Blake wrote in post #18222565
Thanks Charles! I wonder if the loss you're referring is made worse by the crop which is heavier in the first making the sunset larger relative to the image size?

You are correct about the crop's affect on the overall feel of the image, however the white balance and contrast on the land are quite different as well. I like the texture/sharpness of the rock in the second one but it made the plants a bit dark for my taste. We weren't there so we don't know if they should be that dark. The added texture, lost glow and crop draws my attention away from the arch within an arch, which I felt was the main subject in the original. What do you feel is the main subject?

Perhaps warming up the land a tad in the second one would show both texture and glow in all its glory. Of course if I hadn't seen the first one...

My HDR from 3 pictures:

J-Blake wrote in post #18083444
Manually exposure blended in PS CC: 3 ex @ 2 EV's:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JMhz​8u _DSC1434-Edit by Jon Blake, on Flickr

This is a memorable shot, I am envious!

Martin

I like this one, but the clouds feel a little too saturated and heavy, like there is no air. Actually, strange feeling, thank you for the share!

HDR from 3 pictures:

Chimney pots

Horseshoe Bend in Canyonlands. 5 shot pano, 2 shots each at 1EV. Blended manually by creating the pano's first and then blending in PS with layer masks:

J-Blake wrote in post #18235507
Horseshoe Bend in Canyonlands. 5 shot pano, 2 shots each at 1EV. Blended manually by creating the pano's first and then blending in PS with layer masks:

Hosted photo: posted by J-Blake in
./showthread.php?p=182​35507&i=i159036167
forum: HDR Creation

Love this shot! The unique POV seems to be quite a bit lower than what is normally seen at this spot.

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #18235532
Love this shot! The unique POV seems to be quite a bit lower than what is normally seen at this spot.

Yeah, Jon gets lost easily.