a few HDR's from Europe

traunerk

Hope you enjoy...entire gallery (including non-HDRs) is here:

http://kt.smugmug.com/Travel/Europe-2010/13208975_Ffpig#974244949_yrdb3

Art Scott

A very well done series..............It look like a lot of noise in the blue sky of the last photo???

Cheeshead

a few HDR's from Europe
Are these single images processed raw or multiple exposures? They're amazing. Love the church (1&2) best.

traunerk

you're right...
Art - I did not work on the sky on that one - it seems to be a hazard of hdr that you often get a less than attractive sky when all else is right - in the first photo, I actually replaced the sky with a shot from a few days later....but whenever I get a chance, I'll try to give it another go.

thanks for looking...regards...Keith

Art Scott wrote: »

A very well done series..............It look like a lot of noise in the blue sky of the last photo???

traunerk

your question...
all of these were three image composites, typically about 1 to 1 1/3 stop apart. All were taken handheld and some of the church interiors are at very high ISOs - I'm very pleased at how well they came out. Thanks for looking...

Regards...Keith

Cheeshead wrote: »

Are these single images processed raw or multiple exposures? They're amazing. Love the church (1&2) best.

misterb

Very Nice!!!

Turns good shots into works of art.

bradpowellphoto

Photos 3 and 5 rocked my world! Loved them!

TrigPhotography

Very, very nice! Good work!

TonyCooper

Is critique appropriate here? Or, do we just say "Nice work!" or pass entirely?

If it's OK to critique, the sky bothers me in the first and last shot. The technique
has made the sky such a primary focal point that it competes with the actual
subject. In the first image, the ruin is soft but the sky is dominant. Seems the
reverse of what I'd go for.

The Louvre Pyramid shot is something else, though. The technique works well
for this shot. The other shots are well done and well composed (especially the
street scene), but HDR just doesn't work for me.

traunerk

No prob with criticism...
I am always happy to hear others' comments. HDR doesn't always work and usually needs some good post-processing to get exceptional results. Personally, I don't have the time or inclination to do extraordinary processing. So everything could be better, I'm sure. But thanks for looking and putting in your 2 cents - it's appreciated.

regards...Keith

TonyCooper wrote: »

Is critique appropriate here? Or, do we just say "Nice work!" or pass entirely?

If it's OK to critique, the sky bothers me in the first and last shot. The technique
has made the sky such a primary focal point that it competes with the actual
subject. In the first image, the ruin is soft but the sky is dominant. Seems the
reverse of what I'd go for.

The Louvre Pyramid shot is something else, though. The technique works well
for this shot. The other shots are well done and well composed (especially the
street scene), but HDR just doesn't work for me.

bradpowellphoto

TonyCooper wrote: »

but HDR just doesn't work for me.

The one thing I'll never understand about photography (and I see it in my local Photography Club every single day) is why we comment on images using techniques or effects we don't even like in the first place.

I personally like HDR, and even the some of the more "processed" and unrealistic looking images can be beautiful (imho).

I only commented on the 2 images in this thread that I really really liked.

Others had already pointed out the noise in the sky in the one image so there was no need for me to go there.

The other images just didn't do as much for so I left them alone in my comments.

TonyCooper

bradpowellphoto wrote: »

The one thing I'll never understand about photography (and I see it in my local Photography Club every single day) is why we comment on images using techniques or effects we don't even like in the first place.

I personally like HDR, and even the some of the more "processed" and unrealistic looking images can be beautiful (imho).

I only commented on the 2 images in this thread that I really really liked.

Others had already pointed out the noise in the sky in the one image so there was no need for me to go there.

The other images just didn't do as much for so I left them alone in my comments.

I think that most people who post in this group appreciate - and want - comments
on their efforts. My comment was both complimentary about the composition of all
the images and the HD treatment of the Louvre pyramid image and mildly critical
about the over-processed skies.

I would think that even a mixed review of HD images, from someone who admits to not
being a fan of HD images, is better than no comment.

One of the reasons we show our work at our camera club or in a forum like this is
to see how other people view our images. I don't know about you, but I'm not just
looking for pats on the back. If someone doesn't like my technique, I'm interested
in why, so I'm interested in all types of comments.