To HDR Or Not

Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
588
Both of these were shot within seconds of one another.

One is HDR. One is not.

I would welcome critical comments on this, along with reasoning.

Thanks in advance!

Murrey

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


OR

View attachment 94196
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
183
Location
Malmoe, Sweden
I like the non-HDR version better. Your eyes goto explore the rocks directly. I think the HDR version looks alot better. But the non-HDR version is more interesting. The HDR version makes you more to look at whole photo.

Thou I never used HDR, I really think maybe shall start to use it to bring details to some part of photos.

I think if you just had HDR details on the rocks it would be most interestning.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
588
I like the non-HDR version better. Your eyes goto explore the rocks directly. I think the HDR version looks alot better. But the non-HDR version is more interesting. The HDR version makes you more to look at whole photo.

Thou I never used HDR, I really think maybe shall start to use it to bring details to some part of photos.

I think if you just had HDR details on the rocks it would be most interestning.
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!
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
183
Location
Malmoe, Sweden
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:
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
588
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:
I think I understood what you just said, Sunesha.:confused:

Just kidding! (G)
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
13,855
Location
Massachusetts
I have no idea what HDR stands for, or is, but I like photo #2 better. The first one is dark, muddy and I see little to no detail.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
588
I have no idea what HDR stands for, or is, but I like photo #2 better. The first one is dark, muddy and I see little to no detail.
The detail in the first one is there, but it's very subtle. pBase sometimes looses (for whatever reason, I don't know) a lot of color information.

Both shots were taken within seconds of each other and used the same aperature.

The second image was HDR'd. The first (from which I pulled the middle exposure out of a bracket of five), had very little PP'ing in PShop.

Murrey
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Missoula, MT
Definitely like number 2 better. The washed out sky in the first ruins it for me. Essentially, half the image is lost. I also like the foreground colors and detail far more in the second (the first looks a little over-saturated).
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
588
Definitely like number 2 better. The washed out sky in the first ruins it for me. Essentially, half the image is lost. I also like the foreground colors and detail far more in the second (the first looks a little over-saturated).

Doug, the first shot is really not that bad, just a poor fascimile from pBase (happens every now and then and when I call them on it, their reply is, "We don't do anything to the images".). But it was shot at the same time and aperature. PP'd very little.

The point I make with this version of HDR is that it was able to capture those sky pastels and make them work where tradition wouldn't without major PP'ing.

Thanks for your comments!

Murrey
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom