Natural Looking HDR

Stiga wrote in post #18776541
The shortest day +1

Hosted photo: posted by Stiga in
./showthread.php?p=187​76541&i=i239885741
forum: HDR Creation

Hosted photo: posted by Stiga in
./showthread.php?p=187​76541&i=i38951019
forum: HDR Creation

These are very nice photos! Are they HDR's, I wonder?

setagate wrote in post #18780364
These are very nice photos! Are they HDR's, I wonder?

Yes, setagate , they are HDRs. The first was generated from a single RAW and the second from a set of 3. They were processed with SNS-HDR 2 - which I still belive is the best for blues and greens in landscapes.

Thank you for your kind comments.

I actually have a preset I made called Football. You really can't "over cook" a football photo without it looking wrong. I use the preset to make the photo look better, but not too much better.

River scene at dawn

Elfreths Alley

Here we have 5 bracketed images taken under different exposures, blended using Photomatix Pro. (Method: Exposure Fusion/Natural)
Image edited using Adobe Photoshop Elements with Topaz Adjust - Vibrance filter applied.

Kofla wrote in post #18785639
Elfreths Alley

Here we have 5 bracketed images taken under different exposures, blended using Photomatix Pro. (Method: Exposure Fusion/Natural)
Image edited using Adobe Photoshop Elements with Topaz Adjust - Vibrance filter applied.

A colourful scene but, IMO it should not be in this thread as it does not look natural, it is over-saturated - particularly the reds. Photomatix is prone to this.

There appear to be no shadows at all in this scene so I would also question whether 5 exposures were necessary.

Stiga wrote in post #18785646
A colourful scene but, IMO it should not be in this thread as it does not look natural, it is over-saturated - particularly the reds. Photomatix is prone to this.

There appear to be no shadows at all in this scene so I would also question whether 5 exposures were necessary.

While I agree with you, there are many images in this thread that don't look natural or don't appear to have needed HDR.

I like this image but I see two things that could make it better. 1) Removing the ghost flags. 2) I can't tell if the sky was blue or overcast. I suspect overcast due to the lack of shadows. Maybe play with white balance a bit?

By the way I've always struggled keeping blue skies blue in HDR.

C Scott IV wrote in post #18785704
While I agree with you, there are many images in this thread that don't look natural or don't appear to have needed HDR.

I like this image but I see two things that could make it better. 1) Removing the ghost flags. 2) I can't tell if the sky was blue or overcast. I suspect overcast due to the lack of shadows. Maybe play with white balance a bit?

By the way I've always struggled keeping blue skies blue in HDR.

I agree and I think it would be a better thread if some of the unnatural posts were challenged.

Re blue sky, I have found that easyHDR and SNS-HDR render blues well. I have also seen very natural blues processed by Aurora.

It is hard to say whether some 'need' HDR though. I know a lot of my 'HDR' (not posted in this thread) is close and if I was using Nikon or Sony FF I probably wouldn't need it, but I like to improve shadow detail.

ejenner wrote in post #18785959
It is hard to say whether some 'need' HDR though. I know a lot of my 'HDR' (not posted in this thread) is close and if I was using Nikon or Sony FF I probably wouldn't need it, but I like to improve shadow detail.

Yup, that is why I use HDR in moderation. I see so many shots in the Nature & Landscapes forum (and best sunsets / sunrises) that I know could be improved with a bit of image blending or "softly, softly" HDR. These 2 images illustrate this.

1. JPEG straight out of camera + Levels adjustment in Photoshop

First light on the Southern Highlands, Perthshire (Please click Full size to view these 1600px wide panos)

Very nice, Martin!

Fog. Processed with Photomatix and Photoshop.