First serious attempts at HDR...

Candid Arts

Canon 50D, 24-105 f/4L IS, On a tripod, shutter release. did 2/3 exposure bracketing with 9 shots (on 2-7) and 7 shots on image 1.

Any AND all comments are welcomed. Good, bad, ugly, beautiful. Doesn't matter. Let it all out. I want to learn this.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


Thank you!

Bryce.

ColoradoSkier

I think you should submit #'s 5 and 6 to www.HDRSpotting.com. Send me a private message if you need an invite code.

Candid Arts

ColoradoSkier wrote:

I think you should submit #'s 5 and 6 to www.HDRSpotting.com. Send me a private message if you need an invite code.

5 and 6? Those are the exact same image exept obviously 6 is in
color and 5 is not, plus on 5 IS was turned on mounted on my tripod, and in 6 IS was turned off mounted on my tripod. Did you mean 6 and 7?

What makes them worthy of that? I liked them two best I think, but I don't think they compare to many other HDRs I've seen.

ColoradoSkier

I just liked them, and the guys at HDRspotting also like to see B&W hdr's.

Candid Arts

ColoradoSkier wrote:

I just liked them, and the guys at HDRspotting also like to see B&W hdr's.

Well thank you. Again though, are you sure you meant 5 and 6? They are almost the exact same image except one had IS ON and one had it OFF, plus color. Otherwise the exact same image.

Did you mean 6 and 7?

Anyone else have any comments on the photos? Technically?

Candid Arts

Anyone? How did I do?

Candid Arts

Bump for some critique?

craig_d

I am not a fan of many HDR images because they end up either looking bland because all the contrast has been leached out or they look like angry fruit salad because colors and highlights have been amped up well beyond the limits of good taste. I can appreciate subtle uses of HDR that don't look obviously fake.

Here, I think #1 and #4 look pretty good (the ground in #1 is a bit too bright, but not ridiculously so; same for the statue in #4), and #3, while the ground is far too bright to be believable, succeeds on a sort of "magical realism" level. #7 is okay but doesn't do much for me.

#2 is lacking in contrast.

In #5 and #6 there is a visible glow around the statue (#4 and #7 also have this problem, but less strongly), and these pictures generally look like the statue and the background were pasted together from two different shots. (In a way that's what HDR is all about, but it's not supposed to be obvious.) They don't look real to me.

Candid Arts

craig_d wrote:

I am not a fan of many HDR images because they end up either looking bland because all the contrast has been leached out or they look like angry fruit salad because colors and highlights have been amped up well beyond the limits of good taste. I can appreciate subtle uses of HDR that don't look obviously fake.

Here, I think #1 and #4 look pretty good (the ground in #1 is a bit too bright, but not ridiculously so; same for the statue in #4), and #3, while the ground is far too bright to be believable, succeeds on a sort of "magical realism" level. #7 is okay but doesn't do much for me.

#2 is lacking in contrast.

In #5 and #6 there is a visible glow around the statue (#4 and #7 also have this problem, but less strongly), and these pictures generally look like the statue and the background were pasted together from two different shots. (In a way that's what HDR is all about, but it's not supposed to be obvious.) They don't look real to me.

Thank you! I do notice that the ground in #3 is a bit too bright.

I can still see that glow. I tried to bring it down in post, and actually got rid of a lot that was originally there...I guess I've got more work to do.

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.