Boston Skyline

boblu262boblu262 Registered Users Posts: 225 Major grins
edited December 31, 2009 in Landscapes
A recently reprocessed and cropped a shot of the Boston Skyline taken about a year and a half ago. I ran 5 versions of a single RAW file through Photomatix Pro.

C&C welcomed.

<strong>EDIT</strong>: increased size

752776472_eqymG-XL.jpg

Comments

  • schmooschmoo Registered Users Posts: 8,468 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    I think the colors, composition, and the light are great in this!

    As for the HDR, I think it made this image a bit too soft. It's most noticeable right at the waterline, but otherwise this is a beautiful image. I'm just a bit oversensitive to HDR artifacts ne_nau.gif
    SmugMug Editor / News Flash!
    Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
  • boblu262boblu262 Registered Users Posts: 225 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    Thanks for the feedback. I didn't notice the softness at first! I'm not sure its due to the HDR processing.
    Here is a non HDR version for comparison.

    753010201_iTPHW-XL.jpg
  • BsimonBsimon Registered Users Posts: 252 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    The non HDR IMHO is clap.gif
    www.bensimonstudio.com

    Complete Gear List Here
  • kdogkdog Administrators Posts: 11,681 moderator
    edited December 30, 2009
    Bsimon wrote:
    The non HDR IMHO is clap.gif
    Def. nod.gif
    Moderator of Landscapes forum
    Link to my Smugmug site
  • mtullymtully Registered Users Posts: 57 Big grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    Bob,

    I love both of them. The non-HDR for its color and the HDR version for the enhanced highlight and shadow detail in the sky and water. My problem with the HDR version is the "sodium vaporish" cast to it. Is it possible to tweak the color temp, hue or saturation in the plus-exposure source images to minimize this?

    It is an inconvenient truth that our beautiful cities are illuminated by these "gas"tly light sources. Hopefully technology will provide an efficient light source for the future that doesn't look so drab.

    Mike
  • dseidmandseidman Registered Users Posts: 824 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    I think the non HDR is far superior. Then again, I'm not a fan of HDR to begin with. The first of these two shots just looks really fake and the softness isn't helping much either. However, the second image is very nice, in my opinion. It's nice and sharp and has more pop as well.
    Danny Seidman
    http://www.danseidmanphoto.com/
  • boblu262boblu262 Registered Users Posts: 225 Major grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    Thanks all ... Appreciate the input!
  • thomasjmthomasjm Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited December 30, 2009
    Lovely photo. It looks fantastic since you sharpened it.
  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2009
    I have to agree that the non-HDR version is better. I don't see any point to using HDR on this shot. The original has enough punch as it is; the HDR version is overkill.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
  • BradfordBennBradfordBenn Registered Users Posts: 2,506 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2009
    I also like the original more than the HDR.
    -=Bradford

    Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
  • chrismoorechrismoore Registered Users Posts: 1,083 Major grins
    edited December 31, 2009
    I'm a little late to the party, but +1 for no HDR. My only nit about the photo is the structure right in the middle, without any lights on. It gives sort of a dead spot opposed to the rest of the photo with great colors, sky and reflections. I don't think you can clone or crop it out, though. Very nicely done thumb.gif
    Exploring Light Photography
    Crescent City Prints
    Facebook Fan Page
    Blog
Sign In or Register to comment.