I like this shot - a reasonable application of (I assume) HDR.
The lighting is very even and the sky is very pleasing.
Nice!

There is a very similar koi and lily pond in (iconic) Balboa Park in San Diego.
On Sat. night, a flash mob of 1500 persons held a midnight squirt gun fight and completely trashed the pond - drained it and killed the koi and the lilies.
It's a regular scandal in town.

Thanks. I do like the occasional extreme HDR, but to me, it's mostly a tool for making good images, and the first thing you see in an image shouldn't be "oh, HDR" any more then "oh, nice DOF."

I think this is a better application of HDR than your Iowa Capital version. This is very nice.

To me the image appears a bit flat, as is often the case straight out of many HDR tools. A curves adjust and maybe a bit of color correction would make this image pop. I can post an example if the OP desires.

I'm not a big fan of the cooked look. I enjoy seeing some of them, but I like a natural effect in my images. This is what happens too often:


Neon greens, incipient haloing, and all the rest that says "HDR!"

Some people can do that well. Doesn't work for me. I like it when (as in the case of the first image) a knowledgeable person looks at it, and isn't sure it's an HDR.

On the other hand, a small sigmoid adjust for curves doesn't look bad.

I'm not sure which I like better.

I like ^^ this one the best.

Lost some detail in the sky...

I wouldn't say you lost detail in the sky, it was just more muted. For this image the sky is just a backdrop I'd say. I prefer the more muted sky, it lets the foreground details stand out more. Your last sky has too many contrasty edges that draw my attention away from the pond and building.

the only niggle with this one is that it's too flat... the shadows and highlights that would normally give depth to the image have been muted to much. shadow areas that would normally be deep shade aren't, and highlights that should accentuate lighting and texture are missing. that's the danger with HDR... it's so easy to lose that depth, even if you don't obviously overcook the image. some people like that slightly flat look, but personally i'm not a big fan of it.

This set of images is what I find quite interesting about HDR. The tool is designed to convey a large range in contrast, yet the majority of images I see labeled as HDR are quite flat. Look at the histogram of most and you won't see much in the way of tonal range.

Of all the images in the thread, I think the last is the best but I still think it's flat. Quite honestly, I wonder if this scene even required multiple exposures. The contrast between the sky and the foreground doesn't seem that extreme.