HDR Pano, Take 2

Well, I'm getting there. This one is better I think. Did the PM first then merged in CS3. What a long process! You can see a larger version by clicking on thumbnail.

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

coooolll...

dude that is sick!! well done!

I think this is working well, I think I need to go do a pano too. I think saving the PM settings and doing each photo individually then stiching in PS is the way to go.

Gum6y wrote in post #6447718
I think this is working well, I think I need to go do a pano too. I think saving the PM settings and doing each photo individually then stiching in PS is the way to go.

Yea, the first one I was trying to process this massive file in PM and it kept crashing the program. Much better to do the PM first as individual files them merge in PS after.

I've a lot of experience creating panoramas using HDR images, and I always merge the exposures first before stitching the panorama. You'd be mad to do it the other way.

Nicely done, amazing!

I was mad! Mad I tell you!

I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

Deckham wrote in post #6449061
I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

Well, without HDR the clouds would be blown out. sometimes a little HDR will produce something close to what your eye sees. I agree that too much is too much sometimes.

read this post:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=580682

Can you REALLY tell me that the before looks better than the after?....well I guess you could....

Thats a cool image. I would have preferred less clouds but awesome none-the-less.

Kronie wrote in post #6449108
Well, without HDR the clouds would be blown out. sometimes a little HDR will produce something close to what your eye sees. I agree that too much is too much sometimes.

read this post:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=580682

Can you REALLY tell me that the before looks better than the after?....well I guess you could....

To be honest, when I saw that shot I thought the first version looked better, and wondered why others liked the second. You are saying that HDR produces something that is closer to what our eyes see. I'd dispute that for 90% of these treatments. The image up above does not look anything at all like what my eyes would see. It looks like a caricature. The clouds are surreal, the tress are blurry, the colour is over saturated, the scene lacks interest, and is not composed well, not to mention the tilted horizon.

If I had stood there that day, I would have seen something totally different. And contrary to what is bandied around, our eyes do not have infinite dynamic range. Our eyes adjust depending on where we are looking. Kinda like an auto-iso. If the sky was overly bright, my eyes would not resolve the detail.

I would love to see the original version, with exif details.

Deckham wrote in post #6449061
I don't want to sound negative, or offend - but can someone please explain to me what exactly looks appealing in this image? I just can't understand it, and I'm trying.

You're not alone. HDR imaging is primarily a technique for capturing/restoring dynamic range over what a single exposure could record, and is merely the first stage in determining the quality of detail you'll have in your final image.....but, in the past few years, seemingly because of the popular HDR software and their tonemapping features, how people are choosing to process their images/pixels is more down to personal taste, and has little to do with whether they're trying to produce a natural looking image with accurate or realistic dynamic range, or whether they going for something different - artistic/fake/cartooni​sh/etc.
....or, as I suspect most are, just badly processed.

Duder wrote in post #6449305
You're not alone. HDR imaging is primarily a technique for capturing/restoring dynamic range over what a single exposure could record, and is merely the first stage in determining the quality of detail you'll have in your final image.....but, in the past few years, seemingly because of the popular HDR software and their tonemapping features, how people are choosing to process their images/pixels is more down to personal taste, and has little to do with whether they're trying to produce a natural looking image with accurate or realistic dynamic range, or whether they going for something different - artistic/fake/cartooni​sh/etc.
....or as I suspect most are, just badly processed.

...which makes the image an artwork, but strays so far from photography, I question why it is even displayed in a photography forum...

Art is whatever you want it to be, but surely there is some kind of limit to what is done with a photo before it is no longer - a photo.

Actually it looked just like this in real life. I did very little processing.