I think I may have FINALLY processed this shot right!!!!! C&C

I think you nailed it pretty well with the third attempt.  Looks very natural to me - comfortable to look at compared to the others.  Excellent work!

Daryl

--
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. - Ernest Hemingway
Great photography is largely a matter of perspective, both visually and mentally - Daryl Kottwitz (but probably said before )
My gallery: http://darylkottwitzphoto.smugmug.com

Nicely done, sometimes its hard to bring up shadows and still have it look natural, i don't know what natural looked like but i like the 3rd rendition

--
Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Personally, I quite like the unprocessed #1 version, where you can barely see the foreground.  That's just me.

--
in the mail: Q with 02 zoom and cheap K adapter
keepers: K10D, Sig 17-70, DA 55-300, FA 50/1.4 "Billy Bass"
discards: DA 50-200 "zipper", F 100-300, Sigma 135-400 "piglet", M 400/5.6 "the Great Truncheon"

The 2nd and third have the horrible cliché HDR look and to be honest are very weak images because of that, what would be better is to work with the first one brighten it overall, add some yellow to the foreground and then selectively dodge the foreground possibly even a gradient lightening on the foreground.

--
Chris.
A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chriside
GMT +9.5
Pentax SLR talk FAQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072

I like #3 best of these, Lloyd, but I think it's possible to do better.  I find that Photomatix tends to distort colours (there's an old item on Luminous Landscape about how to correct this but I can't find it on a quick look).  I can't remember if you use ACR in CS: if you do, I find it better to use this for HDR.  CS6/ACR7 is much improved from earlier versions.

This version is your #1 reworked through that later version.  Working from the 3 originals would be a lot easier.  Naturally, as I wasn't there I may be wrong about the foreground colours but these seem more natural to my eye.  I left the sky a bit high on saturation because it looks nicer even if not so true.

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Thanks Daryl! This has been a difficult image, I get multiple channels of feedback depending on the viewer and their preferences.

Lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

Mike,

The 3rd is probably the closest to the original as my eye saw it, except for a small enhancement of color in the sky. My original intent was a gallery wrapped Metallic Print in a well lit room. I was hoping that the subtle detail in the dark areas would bloom in the light, but it just wasn't quite there.

Looking to do a canvas gallery wrap at this point and that is more what I am aiming for at this point.

Thanks for commenting!

Lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

Thanks Paul, I appreciate your candor!

As you can see in my reply to MightyMike. I was pleased with my original but the print wasn't what I hoped for.

Lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

The 2nd I agree, that is why I started over. Like I said in my PM I am looking more at Canvas print right now, and I think this may look better on that medium than on the screen.

Will look out for your version!

Lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg

For me the first one is the best. It takes some time to appreciate it, your eyes have to adjust (so to say).

For me no. 2 has an unnatural color balance, while no. 3 has an unnatural brightness.

(It's a dilemma that I face often... I want a wow! picture but tend to forget "credibility".)

--
A.

Very nice scene - I appreciate your posting the other processing attempts.  I think #3 strikes a nice balance between foreground and dramatic sky.  If the foreground weren't so interesting, you might focus more on the formations directly in front of the sky, but the rock layers add a lot of interest to the shot for me...that is why I didn't like the darker look of image 1.

--
Chris

I like 1 and 3, depending on what mood you're going for.

Ed

I been trying Picturenaut 3.2  to no avail.

--
-
Gear Listed in "About Me"

Yes sir, you´r right.

The 3° picture pop-ups from the frame.

I've used Picturenaut, it's not the easiest thing in the world to use, but it gives decent. Reasonably natural results
To be honest with the K5 I'm finding I don't need I need it less.

(a) In camera HDR works pretty well

(b) For many shots where I would once have resorted to HDR it is sufficient to pull the highlights down and the shadows up in lightroom.

When I'm working with the camera on a tripod I will often shoot an in-camera HDR (always saved as JPEG) and a set of 3 RAWs, I'll combine the RAWs with picturenaut and work on them singly in lightroom, there's not a to choose between them

There is no single "right" for a shot like this. There are better / worse and they're a bit subjective so hardly surprising you've got a range of views.

For me too much of #1 is under exposed. I agree with your analysis of #2.

#3 is the best of them - at least to my eyes looking at my monitor. I've seen comments that the processing looks excessive to some eyes on their monitors; I don't agree - I might still try to bring the foreground up a little more (in Lightroom I'd be experimenting with the graduated filters to see if I can get the right sky and foreground exposure at the same time).

Obviously it depends among other things on your monitor a lot here, but my personal preference is the first attempt. It does look underexposed though. I can't help wondering how it would look if you combined just the brightest of the three RAWs with the darkest, then simply blended between them as if you'd used a grad filter.

I suppose whether or not that would be successful depends on the EV difference, but it might avoid too much pulling up or shadows or pulling down the highlights.

--
Beauty and folly are old companions.

You should try the program called "enfuse"

It will give you something similar to tone mapping but without the HDR look.

There is a plugin available for Lightroom

Gerry,

That is an interesting take on the foreground. I will let you take a whack at the originals if you want to... just PM me your email and I will send you the PEF's

lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken
http://lloydshell.blogspot.com/
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/
WSSA #354
http://lloydshell.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p234497562-3.jpg