My hand in HDR

My first attempt with HDR processing

Done with one raw file and 3 stops of exposure 2 stops apart

What do you guys think? Any tips on this area. Oh yeah it was done with photomatix

Taken in Shetland Islands near our B&B

Thanks for looking

Todd

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Not bad at all Todd, but is it perhaps just a bit oversharpened?

Looks good!

What does HDR stand for?

I agree with John, a bit oversharpened.
But as far as HDR goes, it's a fine effort.
It doesn't have that "synthetic" look I sometimes see with HDR.

asolie wrote in post #2412952
Looks good!

What does HDR stand for?

High Dynamic Range.

The camera can only record a certain tonal range of light.
Either the highlights will be blown out or the shadows will be black.

HDR allows a "blend" of several shots to achieve a greater tonal or dynamic range of highlights and shadows.

Maybe soften it up a bit and I'd prefer a tighter crop. Maybe a little less sky, more of a pano composition or switch it up totally and go portrait orientation. That being said there's some nice lines on the go with the ripples/waves of the water coming down from the rocks and reaching the rich brown shore.

wow what a beautiful landscape!

I don't have any crit to add -- I've only recently learned of HDR. I did want to say that I love the colors in the water near the shoreline. It's a beautiful scene, too.

i'm about to delve into hdr myself....nice work!

Thanks guys! Quite the learning curve on this area

I also agree with the sharpening Im gonna tone it down a bit.

Todd

Great use of HDR in this image.. I agree with toning it down a touch, but sterling effort, I would never have guessed it was HDR.

Very nice Todd. What I like the most is the fact that it doesn't look fake. It looks nice and natural which is the point in my opinion. My "pet peeve" are the HDR pictures that are unreal looking. I would agree with others that it may be a little over sharpened. For me it's most noticeable in the water.

Great Job!!

my favorite HDR images are ones that look like they are not HDR.. and yours definately fits in that category. Now that i have read all the mentions of oversharpening, i have to agree with them.. Great first attempt at HDR!

It's quite lovely... only peeve: the blue is a bit too glaring, or at least on my monitor - a slight desaturate filtering over the top fifth or so could make ti more amenable to the eye. But definitely not the usual 'plastic' feel HDR... good job.

The image is not HDR, and it only adds to the confusion relating to HDR by labelling it so. High Dynamic Range images by definition have a greater dynamic range than single image can acheive. Technically, 'HDR's' created from a single RAW are known as IDR's (Increased Dynamic Range).
Also there is no such thing as an HDR look. Compressing the tones in a 32-bit HDR into a viewable 8/16bit image is what causes the 'fake', 'plastic' 'unrealistic' HDR look people are always going on about. There's nothing wrong with people wanting their images to have this look if they want, but it's a misnomer to call it HDR.

HDR is a technique (not a look) in which multiple exposures are merged to create an image with higher dynaimc range, meaning much better quality (virtually noiseless) detail in shadows and highlights, and only certain scenes or subjects benefit from this technique.

Of course people can apply the technique/software in whatever ways they want, but the point I'm making is, unless they're using multiple-exposures it's wrong to label them as HDR's as it only propagates the misconception that already exists.