Adelaide Botanic Gardens HDR

Your thoughts please ?

I am no expert but this looks really nice. I have thought of going to the botanic gardens to get some shots myself. Pity it was overcast for you, a blue sky would have added to the pic in my opinion.

When I look at it, it makes me feel like my eyes can't focus -- like I've just had three drinks. Is something out of register or is it just my eyes, because I haven't had three drinks?

I agree with the 'focus' comment...nothing seems sharp. Blackened clouds are also an HDR giveaway, and generally caused by aggressive tone mapping. Also, its on the underexposed side.

My grandfather has a sister there Adelaide, Australia.

Anyway, on topic:
I really like the idea - and the picture - I don't have any problems with the image (there was one HDR I couldn't look at for some reason) - but: I don't like the colours - my guess is white balance/saturation - but else I like it

Thanks for the comments. As for the wb, which part looks off ? And as for focus, i guess when you reduce a pic from 10MB to 199kb your gonna lose a bit of clarity. Original is a lot sharper.

supernova74 wrote in post #10977231
Thanks for the comments. As for the wb, which part looks off ? And as for focus, i guess when you reduce a pic from 10MB to 199kb your gonna lose a bit of clarity. Original is a lot sharper.

Mainly the building - that yellow - I'm also not quite so keen on the grass.
But the building - either saturate it more, or make it warmer is my suggestion.

post the original(s)

See i think that one is lacking colour a bit

A 5mb version:

Cool image. I actually prefer the original non-modified the most (maybe with a little brightening). However, tried a quick HDR off a single image of it.

IMAGE LINK: http://img411.imagesha​ck.us/i/20100926novahd​r2.jpg/

tkadrum wrote in post #10977421
My HDR version of your's pic.

You can't create an HDR image from a single frame...you'll never get more dynamic range that what has already been captured.

supernova74 wrote in post #10977462
A 5mb version:

I don't know...something still seems lacking. HDR is supposed to capture what the eyes see. The eyes are capable of approximately 3x the dynamic range as that of the sensor, that's why we see what we see, and the camera doesn't. Since the camera can't do that, multiple properly exposed images are required. I think it looks a little flat, and the shadows aren't what one would expect with a proper HDR image, plus the clouds (they're no longer white). Granted, I wasn't there at the time, but unless there's a bad storm brewing the clouds wouldn't normally look that way.

rioni wrote in post #10979777
Cool image. I actually prefer the original non-modified the most (maybe with a little brightening). However, tried a quick HDR off a single image of it.

This one definitely isn't flat, and the shadows have been boosted, but its overcooked and I'd be willing to bet doesn't reflect the actual scene. Again, you can't get any more dynamic range out of an image that what has been captured (which is just the opposite of what HDR is all about).

argyle wrote in post #10980341
You can't create an HDR image from a single frame...you'll never get more dynamic range that what has already been captured.

Yep.

The pics were taken at 5 different exposures. It was a fairly overcast day, but maybe not as dark as in the pics. I edited with CS5. Ill keep practicing. thanks for all the feedback.

supernova74 wrote in post #10983640
The pics were taken at 5 different exposures. It was a fairly overcast day, but maybe not as dark as in the pics. I edited with CS5. Ill keep practicing. thanks for all the feedback.

Try this link for HDR processing (it may help)...

http://www.secondpictu​re.com …ography/hdr_tut​orial.html