Is this too much HDR? C&C please!

I feel as though this image has started to look fake with all the HDR processing that I have done with it, but I am not sure on how to improve it. Is the HDR too much or obvious? Is the image fine as it is? Brutal C&C welcome!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Processing wise, I like it. Perhaps the sky is a bit dark - but who cares? The sky isn't the subject anyway. I've noticed that usually where we're too harsh about HDR the untrained eye absolutely loves it.

Compositionally I think you might get a stronger shot by cropping some of the water from the bottom of the frame. Maybe between the bottom of the frame and the bottom of the falls.

I like it and would like to see a little bit larger image if possible? a bit wider.

I like it...

I've been working quite a bit with HDR recently, trying to improve my skills not only PP, but with shooting. Coming from the side of the tracks of those who do not like that radical, unattractive tone mapped look, and knowing what it takes to prevent it, I think you have done a pretty good job here. On one hand, I looked at the clouds and thought "oops, tone mapping", but then after looking again, I thought "but hey, I've seen clouds that dark and threatening before." So the clouds are probably on that threshold, but I'm sure you tweaked quite a bit to eliminate the halos and other problems. The branches of the trees are within register (but it's hard to tell on a small image) so I'm led to think this may be a single LDR image turned into 3 images. If this was indeed from 3 different exposures, then you did a good job there also. So all-in-all, I think you did a good job. One additional thoughts, tho. To me it looks like a shot that may have been achievable with a single frame. Keep sharing your HDR experience and workflow thoughts. /Dan

Yes it does have too my "hdr". It looks like the shadows were lightened a big bunch.

You can't apply too much 'HDR' to an image. You're confusing HDR with tone-mapping/post processing. HDR is not an effect you apply to an image. HDR is a photographic technique. Once you have merged multiple exposures together to produce an 32-bit HDR image, it's done as an HDR. After that, tone-compression and post processing take over, so if an 'HDR' looks bad it's because it's been processed or developed badly, not because the HDR effect is bad. The point of HDR is to enhance the quality of highlight and shadow detail by extending the dynamic range beyond what the camera is capable of.

Duder wrote in post #2589013
You can't apply too much 'HDR' to an image. You're confusing HDR with tone-mapping/post processing. HDR is not an effect you apply to an image. HDR is a photographic technique. Once you have merged multiple exposures together to produce an 32-bit HDR image, it's done as an HDR. After that, tone-compression and post processing take over, so if an 'HDR' looks bad it's because it's been processed or developed badly, not because the HDR effect is bad. The point of HDR is to enhance the quality of highlight and shadow detail by extending the dynamic range beyond what the camera is capable of.

I know what HDR is. I phrased it that way more to mean "the effect of HDR", i.e. is there too much dynamic range in the image, and does it consequently look like crap? I probably should have been more clear initially..

sjafari wrote in post #2589053
I know what HDR is. I phrased it that way more to mean "the effect of HDR", i.e. is there too much dynamic range in the image, and does it consequently look like crap? I probably should have been more clear initially..

IMHO, no. I do notice the increased dynamic range, but not so much as to say "that's so fake it looks like CGI" or anything. To the untrained eye I think it would simply be a very nice photograph that almost looks like a painting.

BrandonSi wrote in post #2589146
I do notice the increased dynamic range

How many stops of increased dynamic range did you notice?

sjafari wrote in post #2589053
I know what HDR is. I phrased it that way more to mean "the effect of HDR", i.e. is there too much dynamic range in the image, and does it consequently look like crap? I probably should have been more clear initially..

You may still not understand what duder is saying. You cannot have "too much dynamic range" in an image. To be honest, if you put a sensor in my pocket that could capture 20-30 stops, you would not be able to wipe the grin off my face (assuming, of course, monitors, printers, etc. all shared the same increased capabilities). The tone-mapping effect, i.e. re-mapping values of images that are outside the range the monitor you are currently looking at (so that you can view them with the monitor you are currently viewing), is what creates the bizarre-looking images. Improperly applied (or intentionally over-applied) effects is the cause. /Dan

CannedHeat wrote in post #2589277
You cannot have "too much dynamic range" in an image.

wouldnt i have too much dynamic range in an image if the medium i am using to view it cannot display the entire range?

this is getting way to nit picky about my use of the term HDR.. how about this, "tell me what you think about this shot".

I like the HDR in that shot, not over the top but still noticeable enough to make it stand out from regular shots. The composition I would have rotated to the left a touch more to off center the waterfall to the right.

I really like these HDR...I am going to have to break down and learn to do these...is there an easy tutorial somewhere you can direct me to?

superdiver wrote in post #2592464
I really like these HDR...I am going to have to break down and learn to do these...is there an easy tutorial somewhere you can direct me to?

This is where i started. Its a pretty simple process, it just takes patience and practice to keep tweaking settings to your liking.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/hdr.shtml