Most might differ but his version was really much better. (in my opinion). Yours in the OP was really disappointment in the name of HDR.
--
It seems that I don't like to hear honest opinion? Really? That is based off of....what exactly? Several other people pointed out thing that they thought could be improved, and I took that criticism and applied it appropriately. We all try things, some work, some don't. I have no problem learning and expanding my skillset with the help of others. This is my hobby, and I'm here to learn. Putting up with forum trolls is just not that productive. The lesson IcyVeins can take away from this is to be a little nicer on a public forum like this. It goes a long way.
--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!
LOL, it's like saying million flies can't be wrong.
What a nonsense. The OP got a valuable instruction, it's his fault he is too proud not to take it. He should have thanked the guy who took time and showed how to fix his image.
Did you bother to finish the thread, or are you just selectively picking out certain parts to create a specific narrative? There were several people who pointed out, without any sort of nasty undertone, some things I could do to help the image. In no way would I have wanted to take it in the direction that IcyVeins did in the first place. I took the posters advice and re-worked the picture. It might please some, it might not. So what? Read the entire thread and then tell me I'm too proud to take any sort of constructive criticism.
I agree, my unscientific experiments also indicate that 3 exposures is enough in most cases. In fact, in most cases 2 exposures are sufficient, one normal and one for highlights. I've posted some of my previous experiments in this thread: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1055&message=40289875I 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
How many of you have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? It's an enormous, dry hole, often filled with wind blown dust. It seems a lot of this discussion fails to recognize that reality, and substitutes photographic and post-processing expertise for actual experience with the subject matter.
No, it's not.
Not here, they don't. At least in MFT Talk, people usually ask permission to edit, or apologize in advance, along with an offer to remove the photo if requested. You did none of that, and still haven't. As for being "sullenly accosted", are we now supposed to view you as a victim? Odd, since no one has been nearly as aggressive towards you as you've been to the OP.
Thank you for a perfect example of the axiom: Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should.
I think you totaly blew the first one
IcyVeins wrote:
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:
I still think this is the best balance throughout the frame, minus the glowing snow. I shoot a lot of winter landscapes here, and it is always a task to get the snow looking "right" (blue cast in shade, or in stark daylight, blue glow in twilight, ect) mostly so that it doesn't stick out in the final image. Maybe a separate white balance for that element?
Yep and every art gallery I have been to has some over the top CRAP just like what you and IcyVeins are trying to get us to eat...
