You've got me confused Sunesha.
You say you like the non-HDR version better, but you go on to say you think the HDR version looks alot better. Are you sure you're not just a politician in disguise?:biggrin:
Your comment about the rocks intrigues me. Might give it a try, later on.
Thanks!
Hehe,
I just mean the HDR version got more good looking saturation and better contrast in the ground and rocks. But the exposure on the non hdr which makes the sky a bit undetailed is nicer. It makes the rocks more visble.
I think it is a bit like when you have factbook with alot a footnotes you lose focus because of the quantity of details.
To explain myself I like the simpler view and less level of detail on the non hdr version. The HDR version makes alot of level of detail pop to much which makes the rocks disgused a bit
Heh, it is hard to explain. I guess I like the feeling better on the first one. But the HDR version is more "contrasty" and have more saturation which makes it look better from a technical view point. Maybe to say that the whole photo is more well exposed.
But the nonhdr cuts out the sky which makes the foreground and especially rocks have alot more weight and importance. Now I feel like stupid art critic :tongue:
