trying HDR/tone mapping

let me know if this looks like to much... i want it to look a little different but not corny and i have tried so many variations lately i honestly can't tell what looks "right" anymore, let me know what you think, thanks.

Hi Jeffrey,

I really like the top two - grainy look suggests old film, and the grotty woodwork matches the leaves on the bonnet. Sky looks blown out, which kind of defeats the purpose of HDR. Good result though.

Bottom one's a bit too suggestive of that witch with the lollies in the woods... whatever story that was.

Cheers,

Tony

I like them, but they do look a tad bit overdone for my taste. I guess it just depends on what look you are going for in the end. I am trying to learn HDR / Tonemapping myself and from all of the reading I have done, there is no "right" look...

I've always wondered why there are people out there who thinks there's a right way HDR should look like. To me, I love all HDR pictures but I personally like them to be overdone to where it looks just like a painting.

hey guys thanks for looking, i guess by "right look" i mean i don't want them to look too cartoonish or cheesy. relativly subtle but still with something noticeably different about them, anyhow, thanks for the responces, and sorry about my spelling! oh and i think you were thinking of Hansel and Gretel tonydee.

tonydee wrote in post #4380329
Bottom one's a bit too suggestive of that witch with the lollies in the woods... whatever story that was.

Hansel and Grettel. I think that may be why I like it.

I like all of those images. I like that surreal look you can get from tone mapping. I am no pro but I think your images are great.

The first 2 pics have a dreamy type of feel to them. However I think HDR is better used for scenes with a very wide dynamic range and I don't think the situation on the first pic falls into such scene.

kenwood33 wrote in post #4382371
The first 2 pics have a dreamy type of feel to them. However I think HDR is better used for scenes with a very wide dynamic range and I don't think the situation on the first pic falls into such scene.

As I mentioned before, the sky's gone to white in those two pictures, which suggests the dynamic range hasn't been captured. So, perhaps it's fair to say:
- the scene appears to have had a wider dynamic range than was captured in the images (certainly more than survived to the presented image, and tone mapping is intended to preserve such detail)
- HDR could have been used to capture this but ostensibly wasn't
- we're actually seeing - for all intents and purposes - another example of tone mapping of a non-HDR image

The point is that if the original images captured some detail in the sky, an effort should have been made to present this information in the final picture. If they didn't, then the HDR process didn't have the proper HDR inputs.

Of course, can't confirm this without seeing the original images. And the whole is-HDR ain't-HDR only-tone-mapping debate is getting old on POTN.

Cheers,

Tony

i am pretty sure the sky is not blown out, it was just an overcast afternoon, so there was no texture to the clouds in the background and thats what they looked like. but i am still relativly new to the whole hdr thing, so mabey i am way off here. but even in the one that was -2 the sky still had no detail in it.