Delaware River - Stockton, NJ

richtersl

This is one of my favorite places to catch a sunset. And yes, the show was very nice the other night.

Am still practicing HDR with Photomatix and would very much appreciate some C&C. Thanks for looking.

Coconut

If I understand HDR correctly, that is merging a couple of photos so you can get the right mix of shadow and highlight. This looks like a NICE shot at a great time in the day but I don’t really see the drama. Most HDR photos that I have seen are all very dramatic. Just a humble opinion from an untrained eye.

Were the sunrays Photoshopped in? Now they do look dramatic and also there are two spots on the water (on the right hand side) they look like sparkles on top of the water... I like. Gives the photo nice dazzle.

thapamd

Sweet shot, Linda! I think the HDR looks quite natural and well done. The composition is also wonderful. Nice job!

Robbug

Coconut wrote:

[...] Most HDR photos that I have seen are all very dramatic. [...]
Were the sunrays Photoshopped in? [...]

I think this is a well done "HDR". This is the style I like most. Keep it as real as possible. Most photographers tend to overuse the HDR technique imho. It is a style to make the sky contrast quite dramatically and change the photo to a more painting like composition. This is done right imo. NICE capture and well done on the PP to keep it true to what you saw. Very serene.

As to the sun rays, that is due to light diffraction and the interaction with the aperture blades. Looks like f/11 or higher. Nicely done.

Maybe, maybe bump saturation a notch or two. I would be careful with that adjustment as your approaching halation between the trees and the blue sky. Right now it's very subtle but if you were to bump saturation up it might aggravate it a bit. You could also futz around with micro-contrast too. I am not sure if there would be any value added though without some drawbacks. I guess bottom line is if you can get just a bit more blue from the sky without degrading the scene I would try that. Otherwise this is print quality imho.
Rob

Coconut

Aww... okie dokie. I thought the whole point of HDR was to be dramatic and surrealistic. I get it now, I’m learning.

Robbug

Coconut wrote:

Aww... okie dokie. I thought the whole point of HDR was to be dramatic and surrealistic. I get it now, I’m learning.

Dramatic and surrealism is a choice made by the photographer. HDR photography isn't a technique that is truly obtainable by todays normal photographer. The display of HDR requires specialized monitors capable of very high contrast ratios - in order of 20000:1 vice our normal contrast ratios of about 1000:1 or 3000:1. To put it into perspective our eyes can see a contrast ratio in millions:1 based on dynamic range.

When you use a program such as FDRtools, Photomatix, or Adobe Photoshop you actually do create a real HDR photo. When it does come up to display it looks really horrible since the monitor cannot fully show the dynamic range. The next step in the process is called tone mapping. This is the process where we bring the high ends of the range down to the middle so the monitor can actually display it. This of course reduces contrast details and it is up to the operator of the software to interpret how much loss of contrast will occur.

Some let er rip and leave it alone completely and end up with very flat images. Others crank it up to out of this world levels leaving an image that the human eye would never see on it's own. No one way is the "right" way as this is art and everyone has a preference. Using HDR in a minimal form allows a photographer to approach an image that was more true to the scene without having to resort to extra filters and slow shutter speeds etc.

Our cameras are limited in the dynamic range of light they can capture - around 8 exposure stops. Our eyes can see an equvilent of around 23 stops or more while viewing a scene. We then have to compensate by combining exposures to achieve a more realistic scene that our eyes have seen or would have seen.

Here is a good link on this: Dynamic Range in Photography

I hope this helps

Rob

richtersl

Coconut wrote:

If I understand HDR correctly, that is merging a couple of photos so you can get the right mix of shadow and highlight. This looks like a NICE shot at a great time in the day but I don’t really see the drama. Most HDR photos that I have seen are all very dramatic. Just a humble opinion from an untrained eye.

Were the sunrays Photoshopped in? Now they do look dramatic and also there are two spots on the water (on the right hand side) they look like sparkles on top of the water... I like. Gives the photo nice dazzle.

Thanks for looking and for commenting. Actually, I was striving for a more natural look. I can tweak the settings for more drama but didn't want to do that this time around.

The sun rays in the sky and reflected in the water were not PS'd in. If I remember correctly my aperture setting was around F22, which will make stars like that. But I did PS in a few tiny sparkles into the water. The only PS work I did was crop the photo, added the sparkles, and did a minor Curves adjustment.

richtersl

thapamd wrote:

Sweet shot, Linda! I think the HDR looks quite natural and well done. The composition is also wonderful. Nice job!

Thanks Mahesh!

richtersl

Robbug wrote:

I think this is a well done "HDR". This is the style I like most. Keep it as real as possible. Most photographers tend to overuse the HDR technique imho. It is a style to make the sky contrast quite dramatically and change the photo to a more painting like composition. This is done right imo. NICE capture and well done on the PP to keep it true to what you saw. Very serene.

As to the sun rays, that is due to light diffraction and the interaction with the aperture blades. Looks like f/11 or higher. Nicely done.

Maybe, maybe bump saturation a notch or two. I would be careful with that adjustment as your approaching halation between the trees and the blue sky. Right now it's very subtle but if you were to bump saturation up it might aggravate it a bit. You could also futz around with micro-contrast too. I am not sure if there would be any value added though without some drawbacks. I guess bottom line is if you can get just a bit more blue from the sky without degrading the scene I would try that. Otherwise this is print quality imho.
Rob

Thanks Rob! I struggled a bit with that halation by the trees. For the time being it's about as subtle as I can keep it without compromising another area of the photo. I'm sure there's a way to do it but I'm still getting my feet wet with version 3.2. I was very happy to have been able to figure out how to get it to the point that I did.

I think my aperture had been set to f22.

richtersl

Coconut wrote:

Aww... okie dokie. I thought the whole point of HDR was to be dramatic and surrealistic. I get it now, I’m learning.

...it can be. But doesn't need to be.