Sunrise from the Allegheny Front: HDR

PP: Luminance HDR, 'Fattal' tone-mapping. I know that this looks too far from reality, but is it a bit overdone?http://farm2.static.fl​ickr.com …30447642_d8a4e2​5b6a_o.jpg
Thanks.

Where's the pic?

sorry, fixed the link. you should be able to see it now

Nifty pic... lots to like. The detail of the post, the mountains in the distance, I think the light halos add too because they lead the eye to the post. What would be really cool is if you could put something interesting on top of that post, preferably something red. Red is always good

Looks a little too animated and saturated for my taste.

Mgw189 wrote in post #11238737
Looks a little too animated and saturated for my taste.

Same here.

How many images were used, or was this a single shot and heavily PP'd? Either way, this image has bad lens flare, halos around trees, dirty sensor spots, lots of noise, and excessive tonemapping. No offense, but this one needs to be tossed.

I'm always a little sketchy about clicking onto any thread that has 'HDR' in the title. IMO, too many folks think that HDR is synonymous with heavy tonemapping, or believe that using a single image to create plus/minus exposures can be processed into an HDR image (its not, and they can't). That being said, my advice would be to read up on HDR and practice. If your goal is to reflect the reality of the scene, then you'll know right away if the end result is any good or not. If your goal is more along the lines of digital art (where heavy tonemapping is usually the norm), that's another matter entirely.

Thanks for the critique. I guess the software one would use to produce digital art or to reflect reality would be different. Luminance HDR falls in the former category, IMO.
I used 3 images (2 EV steps) to get this. I see the dirty sensor spots, and noise in the mountains. FYI, I also used picturenaut, and the result is here. I think this is more realistic, but has the same lens flare and could be a bit sharper/better focused.

Geez I really like it