Reading mode: Light Dark

One HDR from the canyon and a sunset...

Go to last post
Thanks. Your ability to provide reasonably phrased criticism is appreciated. I will take your points, as well as others here and try to rework this piece.
--
Money can't buy happiness....It has to be converted into photo equipment first.
 
So the OP takes a picture and posts it on the site. Then he gets slammed. I actually like the original better than the modified. Everyone has a vision of what their photography can be and that image was his vision. The modified shot looks way to "cartoonish" IMHO. And that, is what to me, gives HDR a bad name.
 
Thanks for doing a "normal looking" HDR rather than the overblown stuff you normally see.

I too think the snow is a little too distracting. It pulls you down to the lower left, rather than looking out into the Vista.

Other than that it really captures the mood of the canyon.

For anyone who has never been to the canyon, it's really hard to photograph well. During the day you have the very bright sunlit areas and the very dark shadows. Whenever the sun is going down, it's even harder to preserve detail because it gets dark quick.

A couple of my favorites taken with an Olympus C7070. Jpeg OOC, no post processing.









I really want to get back now that I have my m4/3 gear, though it's not easy to have a photo holiday with a 5 year old!
 
Hack job is right. I love the OPs version. Nice subtle effort at compressing a big DR scene into a natural-looking jpeg. Overdone HDR makes me want to barf.
Brian Mosley said:
Taking someone's jpeg and doing a hack job to boost your own ego is pretty low.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
 
LTZ470 said:
OdzBodkinz said:
That isn't how I wanted it to look.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your rendition of what the Grand Canyon actually looks like...the OP's is much better in my eyes and the second PP by IcyVeins is terrible looking to me?...But what do I know....

Been to the Grand Canyon and believe me the first photo is as real as it gets...

The second by IcyVeins anyone can tell is a total mock up...IF you have been to the Grand Canyon previously...
Click to expand...
LTZ nailed it.

I've spent two weeks hiking in Grand Canyon, and the OP's photo looks much more realistic than IcyVeins' attempt. The second version smacks of a Peter Lik interpretation, and I find what I've seen of his work to be distastefully over processed. Some suggestions about other ways to go with HDR would've been fine, but to borrow from IcyVeins, his version "is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name," and his tone was unnecessary.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
 
i think all this internet white-knighting is a bit unnecessary.

i cannot imagine a single professional landscape photographer would prefer the original in the OP. with one glance you can tell the DR is really compressed. the real dynamic range of the scene is probably like 15 stops or something. with a well-done HDR you can compress it into 8-bits, which is 9 stops. the OP's picture is probably like 5 stops at most.

it feels like im looking at the grand canyon through a really grimy window.
453C said:
LTZ470 said:
OdzBodkinz said:
That isn't how I wanted it to look.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your rendition of what the Grand Canyon actually looks like...the OP's is much better in my eyes and the second PP by IcyVeins is terrible looking to me?...But what do I know....

Been to the Grand Canyon and believe me the first photo is as real as it gets...

The second by IcyVeins anyone can tell is a total mock up...IF you have been to the Grand Canyon previously...
Click to expand...
LTZ nailed it.

I've spent two weeks hiking in Grand Canyon, and the OP's photo looks much more realistic than IcyVeins' attempt. The second version smacks of a Peter Lik interpretation, and I find what I've seen of his work to be distastefully over processed. Some suggestions about other ways to go with HDR would've been fine, but to borrow from IcyVeins, his version "is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name," and his tone was unnecessary.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
 
spacenegroes said:
i cannot imagine a single professional landscape photographer would prefer the original in the OP. with one glance you can tell the DR is really compressed. the real dynamic range of the scene is probably like 15 stops or something. with a well-done HDR you can compress it into 8-bits, which is 9 stops. the OP's picture is probably like 5 stops at most.

it feels like im looking at the grand canyon through a really grimy window.
453C said:
LTZ470 said:
OdzBodkinz said:
That isn't how I wanted it to look.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your rendition of what the Grand Canyon actually looks like...the OP's is much better in my eyes and the second PP by IcyVeins is terrible looking to me?...But what do I know....

Been to the Grand Canyon and believe me the first photo is as real as it gets...

The second by IcyVeins anyone can tell is a total mock up...IF you have been to the Grand Canyon previously...
Click to expand...
LTZ nailed it.

I've spent two weeks hiking in Grand Canyon, and the OP's photo looks much more realistic than IcyVeins' attempt. The second version smacks of a Peter Lik interpretation, and I find what I've seen of his work to be distastefully over processed. Some suggestions about other ways to go with HDR would've been fine, but to borrow from IcyVeins, his version "is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name," and his tone was unnecessary.
--
http://453c.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I've never been there. I do know however that anyone can PP the death out of a shot and get something that looks nothing what the scene looks like in real life. It depends on the goal of the photographer. Create a poster print for advertisers or mass consumed wall art or produce an image that reflects the natural state of the scene.
 
I didn't actually think about nor notice the snow at all until it was mentioned as distracting.

It does stand out, but in my mind, it also gives it a sense of seasonality, which I like.

--
-- Ben
 
IcyVeins said:
This is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I want to take your comment and apply it to your own photo. I felt that the original photo actually HIGHLIGHTS the benefits of HDR when done right. The picture is natural looking without compromising the beauty inherent to the shot.
 
So after reading the responses this afternoon, I thought I'd take another shot at processing the HDR with consideration to the critiques I received. I am also going to include one of the original shots, so you can better gauge the conditions on the day I took the shot.

I would also like to take the time to point out, that it isn't absolutely necessary to be so prickly with your negative opinions. I appreciate any and all feedback. One can certainly hold an opinion about styles and choices made by others, but really, be more civil. There were several critiques here made in a perfectly well-mannered way that warranted no back-biting. I, as well as others, are probably more apt to be open to hearing advice when presented that way. It doesn't serve you to be so ugly in an open forum, and will only paint you in an unflattering way.

There is a world of difference between:

"This doesn't appeal to me." and "This doesn't appeal to me, what in the hell is wrong with you? You like this? Ugh."

Be courteous. It's what your Mom would want you to do.

Now the pics. I reworked this with more realistic cloudline and de-emphasized the snowy part of the ridge.



Here is an original.



and the first HDR from the first post.



--
Money can't buy happiness....It has to be converted into photo equipment first.
 
Nice, i like second attempt better. Or first, but with sky from second hdr attempt. What felt unnatural are places, where sun didn't shine, but still they looked brighter than sky.
 
IcyVeins said:
This is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name. It's like you took a perfectly good landscape and made it completely flat and uninteresting just for the sake of doing HDR. The sky is way too dark and the image as a whole is painfully devoid of contrast. There is also an obvious blue color cast. Seven exposures was six too many. When I opened it in ACR, two thirds of the histogram was completely empty. I made a valiant attempt to rescue it from the low resolution image you posted, this is what the image should have looked like:
Click to expand...
I always wondered why HDR experts recommend to take 5 or 7 exposures. If one does that there is an increased chance to lose contrast. I always stop at 2 exposures, and still sometimes there is loss of contrast but not excessive.

In my mind HDR should be used to correct the camera lack of sufficient DR and not try to push it above limits.

My normal HDR setup is 2 exposures at one stop between them. Then the picture looks as one taken with a very good camera rather than with a u43 :)
 
Lol are you serious? A hack job? I saw an "HDR" photo that TO ME looked like a totally botched attempt at HDR that resulted in a very unpleasing rendition of what otherwise might have been a good photo. I could have just said all the things I didn't like about it, but what good would that be without explaining how I think it should look? I don't expect everyone to think my version is better, especially since I began with an extremely low resolution jpeg compared to seven bracketed RAW exposures, but I do expect people to better understand why I don't care for the original after seeing an approximation of how I would have liked it to look. What I don't expect is to be shot down and have my EGO called into question.
Brian Mosley said:
Taking someone's jpeg and doing a hack job to boost your own ego is pretty low.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
 
Gavril Margittai said:
IcyVeins said:
This is exactly the kind of image that gives HDR a bad name. It's like you took a perfectly good landscape and made it completely flat and uninteresting just for the sake of doing HDR. The sky is way too dark and the image as a whole is painfully devoid of contrast. There is also an obvious blue color cast. Seven exposures was six too many. When I opened it in ACR, two thirds of the histogram was completely empty. I made a valiant attempt to rescue it from the low resolution image you posted, this is what the image should have looked like:
Click to expand...
I always wondered why HDR experts recommend to take 5 or 7 exposures. If one does that there is an increased chance to lose contrast. I always stop at 2 exposures, and still sometimes there is loss of contrast but not excessive.

In my mind HDR should be used to correct the camera lack of sufficient DR and not try to push it above limits.

My normal HDR setup is 2 exposures at one stop between them. Then the picture looks as one taken with a very good camera rather than with a u43 :)
Click to expand...
I agree, I love HDR but mostly just for those times where you have more dynamic range than the camera can handle. And there are of course plenty of post processing tools like burn and dodge and curves, etc. that can create an HDR look without the need for many different exposures, yes you may technically be degrading image quality but if done well it is unnoticeable in web-sized images or normal-sized prints.
 
It isn't what you said, it's how you said it. Now you're calling into question the tastes of those who didn't like your version? Which by the way, it was way out of line to take someone elses piece and re-work it to your own vision without permission.
IcyVeins said:
Lol are you serious? A hack job? I saw an "HDR" photo that TO ME looked like a totally botched attempt at HDR that resulted in a very unpleasing rendition of what otherwise might have been a good photo. I could have just said all the things I didn't like about it, but what good would that be without explaining how I think it should look? I don't expect everyone to think my version is better, especially since I began with an extremely low resolution jpeg compared to seven bracketed RAW exposures, but I do expect people to better understand why I don't care for the original after seeing an approximation of how I would have liked it to look. What I don't expect is to be shot down and have my EGO called into question.
Brian Mosley said:
Taking someone's jpeg and doing a hack job to boost your own ego is pretty low.

Cheers

Brian
--
Join our free worldwide support network here :
http://www.ukphotosafari.org/join-the-ukpsg/
UK, Peak District Local Olympus Safari Group : http://snipurl.com/bqtd7-ukpsg
Keep up with me here : http://twitter.com/alert_bri
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Money can't buy happiness....It has to be converted into photo equipment first.
 
OdzBodkinz said:
It isn't what you said, it's how you said it. Now you're calling into question the tastes of those who didn't like your version? Which by the way, it was way out of line to take someone elses piece and re-work it to your own vision without permission.
Click to expand...
Did you misread my post? I'll quote the relevant part again:

" I don't expect everyone to think my version is better, especially since I began with an extremely low resolution jpeg compared to seven bracketed RAW exposures, but I do expect people to better understand why I don't care for the original after seeing an approximation* of how I would have liked it to look."*

Whether or not my editing your image is "out of line" is just your personal opinion, but the fact that you hold this opinion shows that you are unwise to the ethos of the DPR forums, where people do this all the time without being sullenly accosted for it. Once you share an image with the public, then unless you place a specific license on the image, it's fair game as long as nobody tries to misrepresent it as their own or tries to somehow profit from it.
 
LOL, oh really? Most would beg to differ. Thanks for playing though.
IcyVeins said:
OdzBodkinz said:
It isn't what you said, it's how you said it. Now you're calling into question the tastes of those who didn't like your version? Which by the way, it was way out of line to take someone elses piece and re-work it to your own vision without permission.
Click to expand...
Did you misread my post? I'll quote the relevant part again:

" I don't expect everyone to think my version is better, especially since I began with an extremely low resolution jpeg compared to seven bracketed RAW exposures, but I do expect people to better understand why I don't care for the original after seeing an approximation* of how I would have liked it to look."*

Whether or not my editing your image is "out of line" is just your personal opinion, but the fact that you hold this opinion shows that you are unwise to the ethos of the DPR forums, where people do this all the time without being sullenly accosted for it. Once you share an image with the public, then unless you place a specific license on the image, it's fair game as long as nobody tries to misrepresent it as their own or tries to somehow profit from it.
Click to expand...
--
Money can't buy happiness....It has to be converted into photo equipment first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top