Two Different Treatments of Mount Lafayette, New Hampshire

hawkeye978hawkeye978 Registered Users Posts: 1,218 Major grins
edited October 9, 2008 in Landscapes
Time for comparisons and opinions. I'm glad to share the pictures but also is as much about a discussion on processing techniques as the quality of the picture.

I was in Franconia Notch State Park in the White Mountains of New Hampshire over the week. The foliage is peaking there but somewhat unfortunately heavy clouds moved in. From the top of the observation tower on Cannon Mountain I decided to try and take a series of bracketed exposures to see what I could produce. The snow topped mountain in the distance is Mount Lafayette. Mount Washington is behind Lafayette but blocked at this position.

I tried a HDR treatment with Photomatix and a blended exposure in Photoshop. Opinions, comments, critique, alternate techniques, and general discussion all appreciated.

#1 Blended Exposure

389632158_RCTQk-L.jpg

#2 HDR

389631909_Yib9h-L.jpg
Tom Price

Website: Tom Price Photography
 Blog: Capturing Photons
Facebook: Tom Price Photography

Comments

  • CatOneCatOne Registered Users Posts: 957 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2008
    I don't see anything really crying for HDR in that image. You could do a mask and tweak the clouds for more drama if you wanted.

    Also, in the HDR image, the trees in the lower left are not sharp. In the blended exposure, they are. For that reason alone, it gets my vote.
    My Landscape Galleries
  • Kayaking-N-SCKayaking-N-SC Registered Users Posts: 17 Big grins
    edited October 8, 2008
    #1 is much sharper than #2.
    Thomas
    Columbia, SC

    Canon 5DmkII / 40D / 24-105 F4 L / LensBaby Composer

    TLKPhotos.SmugMug.com
  • Dave CleeDave Clee Registered Users Posts: 536 Major grins
    edited October 8, 2008
    The HDR is a no go for me. #1 is better but on my LCD it still comes across as a bit to warm.

    Cheers

    Dave
    Still searching for the light...

    http://www.daveclee.com

    Nikon D3 and a bunch of nikkor gear
    that has added up over the years :wink
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2008
    think no. 1 is better
    My Gallery
  • hawkeye978hawkeye978 Registered Users Posts: 1,218 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2008
    I made the three exposures handheld but I was shooting at 3 fps to minimize motion. Photomatix was set to align but the fuzziness seems to be a lack of alignment. Unfortunately there is no way to adjust the alignment manually in that software.

    Anyone have a solution for the alignment issue with Photomatix? I know a tripod is the actual solution but it just wasn't practical in that circumstance. There were probably 2 dozen plus people on the top of that tower. I've tried a variety of settings but nothing quite gets me there.

    Thanks...
    Tom Price

    Website: Tom Price Photography
     Blog: Capturing Photons
    Facebook: Tom Price Photography
  • kitvankitvan Registered Users Posts: 243 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2008
    very cool. I like #1 the best.
    "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
  • JenGraceJenGrace Registered Users Posts: 1,229 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2008
    I think the hills in the middle left of the second shot look better for color, but overall I think the first is better. It's sharper and not as yellow.
    Jen

    Gallery of mine...caution, it's under CONSTANT construction! | Photo Journal

    In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary. ~Aaron Rose
  • TristanPTristanP Registered Users Posts: 1,107 Major grins
    edited October 9, 2008
    #1 is much more pleasing to the eye - especially the contrast.
    panekfamily.smugmug.com (personal)
    tristansphotography.com (motorsports)

    Canon 20D | 10-22 | 17-85 IS | 50/1.4 | 70-300 IS | 100/2.8 macro
    Sony F717 | Hoya R72
Sign In or Register to comment.