Couple of HDR Landscapes

canon400dcanon400d Banned Posts: 2,826 Major grins
edited October 23, 2010 in Landscapes
I havene't done a lot of HDR landscapes but here are a couple I put through Photomatix. Before I take more shots I would like some advice on these two shots. I feel that Photomatix is a hit and miss process whilst learning so any advice on the initial settings of Photomatix would be more than appreciated.
Cheers
Bob
1.
1059045444_cu9WX-L.jpg
2.
1059045407_gSNh5-L.jpg

Comments

  • JimKarczewskiJimKarczewski Registered Users Posts: 969 Major grins
    edited October 22, 2010
    Which version of Photomatix? The new version (3 I believe) is much better than the old... MUCH. More "presets" now for your images.

    In all honesty, they don't look like HDR, which is good, but I'm wondering what really warranted HDR, doesn't look like a very high contrast scene where you would normally need HDR to pull the shadows out of oblivion.
    Jim Karczewski - http://www.jimkarczewski.com
  • canon400dcanon400d Banned Posts: 2,826 Major grins
    edited October 22, 2010
    JimKarczewski wrote: »
    Which version of Photomatix? The new version (3 I believe) is much better than the old... MUCH. More "presets" now for your images.

    In all honesty, they don't look like HDR, which is good, but I'm wondering what really warranted HDR, doesn't look like a very high contrast scene where you would normally need HDR to pull the shadows out of oblivion.

    Thanks for the reply. It is Photomatix Pro 3.2
    Cheers Bob
  • squirl033squirl033 Registered Users Posts: 1,230 Major grins
    edited October 22, 2010
    Photomatix 4.0 is apparently out now, and from what i hear, it offers significant improvements over 3.2...

    as for your images, i'm kinda with Jim on this... not sure these even needed HDR processing to begin with, unless they were shot in VERY low light, which doesn't appear to be the case. regardless, you did a very nice job of making these look like you did NOT use HDR, which is in my opinion a very good thing for landscape shots.
    ~ Rocky
    "Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
    Three Dog Night

    www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
  • canon400dcanon400d Banned Posts: 2,826 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2010
    squirl033 wrote: »
    Photomatix 4.0 is apparently out now, and from what i hear, it offers significant improvements over 3.2...

    as for your images, i'm kinda with Jim on this... not sure these even needed HDR processing to begin with, unless they were shot in VERY low light, which doesn't appear to be the case. regardless, you did a very nice job of making these look like you did NOT use HDR, which is in my opinion a very good thing for landscape shots.

    Thanks for that Rocky. Am I right in saying HDR is normally used when the light is not as good as it should be. I have updated to 4.0.
    Cheers
    Bob
  • JCJC Registered Users Posts: 768 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2010
    Nice images- I agree that it's nice to see understated HDR images that aren't too artificial. Number 1 is nice, good dynamic range between the water and trees shading the water, but I'd like to see more dynamic range within the massive foliage (then again, I'm looking at this on a bright laptop screen, so take that with a grain of salt).
    for the second image- was this a singe RAW image HDR, or multiple images with multiple exposures? Given the sky detail seen in the reflection in the water, I'd think that HDR treatment should be able to pull out some detail in the sky -this is what makes me think it's a single-image HDR. If that's the case, the second image, if you don't crop out the sky, would probably have benefited from tripod and multiple exposures.
    Yeah, if you recognize the avatar, new user name.
  • canon400dcanon400d Banned Posts: 2,826 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2010
    kolibri wrote: »
    Nice images- I agree that it's nice to see understated HDR images that aren't too artificial. Number 1 is nice, good dynamic range between the water and trees shading the water, but I'd like to see more dynamic range within the massive foliage (then again, I'm looking at this on a bright laptop screen, so take that with a grain of salt).
    for the second image- was this a singe RAW image HDR, or multiple images with multiple exposures? Given the sky detail seen in the reflection in the water, I'd think that HDR treatment should be able to pull out some detail in the sky -this is what makes me think it's a single-image HDR. If that's the case, the second image, if you don't crop out the sky, would probably have benefited from tripod and multiple exposures.
    Thanks for that. I did both images using Photoshop in raw using the original raw image and -1 and +1 exposures.
    I then put the three images through Photomatix. I see what you mean in image two with the sky.
    Cheers
    Bob
Sign In or Register to comment.