Forest HDR

NeuralLotus

This is my first HDR. Merged and edited in Photoshop CS3. Taken in Tryon Creek State Park in Portland, Oregon. C+C welcome and appreciated.

Skippy

NeuralLotus wrote:

This is my first HDR. Merged and edited in Photoshop CS3. Taken in Tryon Creek State Park in Portland, Oregon. C+C welcome and appreciated.

Hi there NeuralLotus, not every subject is suited to HDR.
This looks more like a Black and White image with selective colourisation done to it.

You should try doing a HDR with an image that has a lot more different colours in it, this picture was probably not a good choice for HDR.

.... Skippy
.

Candid Arts

Skippy wrote:

Hi there NeuralLotus, not every subject is suited to HDR.
This looks more like a Black and White image with selective colourisation done to it.

You should try doing a HDR with an image that has a lot more different colours in it, this picture was probably not a good choice for HDR.

.... Skippy
.

Agreed. Also a place with very different dynamic ranges (hence the term HD(dynamic)R(range). Something where the only way to make the different parts of the scene exposed correctly is to take 3 different photos at different exposures for each.

Excellent photo though.

NeuralLotus

Skippy wrote:

Hi there NeuralLotus, not every subject is suited to HDR.
This looks more like a Black and White image with selective colourisation done to it.

You should try doing a HDR with an image that has a lot more different colours in it, this picture was probably not a good choice for HDR.

.... Skippy
.

Thanks for the input. I mainly just did this to try out making an HDR. You did mention more color, but actually I decided to do something different here and turn down the saturation in Photoshop; I just like the feeling of this image more with less saturation. I am kind of wondering how it would be responded to if I never mentioned it being an HDR though...? Well, that's just a random thought. I just kind of liked the tonal range of this HDR combined with a decreased saturation. I think it made it better than just a straight HDR conversion would have. Anyway, I guess I'm starting to ramle in a slightly stream-of-conciousness manner, so I will just stop here. Anyway, thank you both for the input.

Edit: I actually just looked at this image on a computer at school, an eMac to be specific. I know that images are usually darker on Macs, and this reflects that property, so just wondering how dark it looks on others' screens. Just thinking that people might be seeing it much darker than it really is, or is actually supposed to be I should say. Although I guess most people here use calibrated monitors, so I guess I need to calibrate my screen. I've just never really got around to doing that, .

jstpeter

Very dark and not much color in the photo on my screen. Also I can not find a focal point. The overall scene is busy and I find my eye jumping all over the place.

Maybe an angle without the tree cutting the creek in half might focus the viewer along the creek making it much more pleasing to the eye.

NeuralLotus

jstpeter wrote:

Very dark and not much color in the photo on my screen.

Okay, that explains it then. On my laptop at home it wasn't EXTREMELY dark, and it had more color than "not much". So, I guess I will need to calibrate my screen and reprocess it. Luckily I still have the original PSD without the watermark (yes, there is a watermark, it's just hard to see... very hard to see, but I made it like that so it wouldn't be too distracting), so it shouldn't take too long. I'll repost when I get it done, which should be later today or tomorrow.

Edit: O_o... weird, somehow your post got longer after I wrote a reply, and it doesn't say that there was an edit... hmmm... random glitch in the server I guess. Anyway, to better reply to your comment, on my screen at home it seemed to have a more obvious point of focus (yeah, not saying focal point just because in optics it has a very different meaning). It will probably be a lot better once I get it reprocessed. Well, at least this is going to get me to actually calibrate my screen, .

jeffmeyers

NeuralLotus wrote:

Okay, that explains it then. On my laptop at home it wasn't EXTREMELY dark, and it had more color than "not much". So, I guess I will need to calibrate my screen and reprocess it. Luckily I still have the original PSD without the watermark (yes, there is a watermark, it's just hard to see... very hard to see, but I made it like that so it wouldn't be too distracting), so it shouldn't take too long. I'll repost when I get it done, which should be later today or tomorrow.

Edit: O_o... weird, somehow your post got longer after I wrote a reply, and it doesn't say that there was an edit... hmmm... random glitch in the server I guess. Anyway, to better reply to your comment, on my screen at home it seemed to have a more obvious point of focus (yeah, not saying focal point just because in optics it has a very different meaning). It will probably be a lot better once I get it reprocessed. Well, at least this is going to get me to actually calibrate my screen, .

Remember, the whole point of doing HDR is so that you can capture in one image the high as well as the low ranges in a complex high dynamic range scene. If the scene itself has no high dynamic range (as this one appears not to have) the the HDR process will not ADD anything to the image. Make sense?

NeuralLotus

jeffmeyers wrote:

Remember, the whole point of doing HDR is so that you can capture in one image the high as well as the low ranges in a complex high dynamic range scene. If the scene itself has no high dynamic range (as this one appears not to have) the the HDR process will not ADD anything to the image. Make sense?

Yeah, it makes complete sense. I know I probably could have just used the photo with the best exposure and upped the contrast and downed the saturation for the same effect, but as I said, I was mainly just trying out making an HDR. It was just to see what it's like for the most part.

NeuralLotus

Well, I calibrated my screen using Adobe Gamma. Hopefully this version of the photo works better. It looks like it should be fine, but I guess I'll find out soon enough. Here it is, reprocessed.

NeuralLotus

I don't really want to bump this to get a response, but I would some feedback on the reprocessed image. Although, I can already see that I probably should have used more contrast; but the request still stands, feedback would be appreciated.

Qarik

the 2nd image does appear less dark then the 1st image.

anvilimage

Did you tone map this image much? Have you tried the Photomatix trial?

-joe

NeuralLotus

anvilimage wrote:

Did you tone map this image much? Have you tried the Photomatix trial?

-joe

No, I haven't tried the Photomatix trial. And, no, I did no tone mapping.

anvilimage

Sorry, I'm kinda new here and I don't know if this is a faux pas.

I copied the image, threw it in PS, converted it to 32bit, saved as a .tif and opened it in Photomatix. I just left the sliders where they were for my last HDR and hit the "Process" button. Here is the result, which BTW is 8 bit (of course):



Nothing fancy, but it does give the pic a little more of that "pop" that you'd expect from and HDR.

My monitor is giving me a little trouble - my brand new color calibrator is giving me a blue cast on two different computers and the touch sensitive buttons on my monitor aren't working. No on/off - nothing. Both are being replaced by their respective manufacturers. But I digress....

My point is that I adjusted the curves a little and added some saturation and it really starts to bring you there. I'd post that result, but my current color situation is unreliable or verifiable (as verbosely explained above!).

If my editing your pic is a no-no, let me know-know and I'll yank it down. FWIW...

-joe

jeffmeyers

Joe: I hate to the be the Simon Cowell here, but someone needs to just give it to you straight. This image is not worth working on. I tried to make that clear in an earlier comment. Doing HDR on this image is not going to produce anything worthwhile. The composition is poor. The subject matter is uninteresting.

Your most recent pp work does NOT "give the image more pop than you would expect from an HDR." The only "pop" in his image is the garish colors of green and purple.

Your determination is inspiring. That's good. Keep working and tweaking things. But sometimes you have to just know when to give up on an image and go out and capture something else! :smack

NeuralLotus

jeffmeyers wrote:

Joe: I hate to the be the Simon Cowell here, but someone needs to just give it to you straight. This image is not worth working on. I tried to make that clear in an earlier comment. Doing HDR on this image is not going to produce anything worthwhile. The composition is poor. The subject matter is uninteresting.

Your most recent pp work does NOT "give the image more pop than you would expect from an HDR." The only "pop" in his image is the garish colors of green and purple.

Your determination is inspiring. That's good. Keep working and tweaking things. But sometimes you have to just know when to give up on an image and go out and capture something else! :smack

Okay, your emoticon made me laugh, and perhaps it is exactly what I needed, to be smacked in the face with a fish, lol. I know it probbaly isn't the best for an HDR, but I was wanting to try something new, so I did, and it seemed like out of all the photos taken on that day, that would work best for HDR. I guess I'll just give up on this and leave it as is. I'm going to have a lot of editing to do for my Digital Photo class anyway, which will probably turn into a much more interesting piece than this, since I'm going beyond the assignment and turning it into an installation piece.

Also, anvilimage, don't worry about editing my image. It's not like you're editing and then saying that you did all the work and taking all the credit or anything. I'm fine with you editing it to show me how to improve.

Thank you both for your critique, and obvious criticism . It's appreciated, don't worry.

anvilimage

jeffmeyers wrote:

Joe: I hate to the be the Simon Cowell here, but someone needs to just give it to you straight. This image is not worth working on. I tried to make that clear in an earlier comment. Doing HDR on this image is not going to produce anything worthwhile. The composition is poor. The subject matter is uninteresting.

eh... I'll be the Randy Jackson to your Simon Cowell. I was trying to encourage by example. Some people are intimidated by HDR and I was offering an alternative to simply adjusting levels by using his work to experiment on. It's not like I put any effort into it.

Your most recent pp work does NOT "give the image more pop than you would expect from an HDR." The only "pop" in his image is the garish colors of green and purple.

Like I said, it's not like I put any effort into it. I basically opened Photomatix and hit the process button... who pissed in your wheaties this morning? It's almost like you're offended that he tried and that I helped. He seemed to need help with the workflow concepts that are used to make an HDR do what it does.

NeuralLotus: Keep trying and I hope to see your next effort soon... BTW: just call me joe.

-joe

NeuralLotus

anvilimage wrote:

eh... I'll be the Randy Jackson to your Simon Cowell. I was trying to encourage by example. Some people are intimidated by HDR and I was offering an alternative to simply adjusting levels by using his work to experiment on. It's not like I put any effort into it.



Like I said, it's not like I put any effort into it. I basically opened Photomatix and hit the process button... who pissed in your wheaties this morning? It's almost like you're offended that he tried and that I helped. He seemed to need help with the workflow concepts that are used to make an HDR do what it does.

NeuralLotus: Keep trying and I hope to see your next effort soon... BTW: just call me joe.

-joe

Okay, I'll try to remember to call you Joe. ...Maybe next time I'll notice the thing under your name, lol. But, yeah, I don't think I'll be do anymore HDRs anytime soon because of my Digital Photo project. I might do some more after I finish that. It's a pretty large task that I'm taking on compared to what I am used to. Well, I'll post all of that when it's done, and hopefully it will be interesting. But that probably won't be for another three weeks. Well, anyway, thanks for the help.