What a cool waterfall! The processing is a little crispy for my taste but in the first it really did accentuate the cool textures created by the different streams over the rippled rocks.
Thanks! Buttermilk is a great place! I was trying my hand at HDR nature shots. I like how it looks but it does feel overwhelming. What would you recommend to make it better?
Thanks! Buttermilk is a great place! I was trying my hand at HDR nature shots. I like how it looks but it does feel overwhelming. What would you recommend to make it better?
What software did you use to process these? Ill can give you a few good tips if you're using photomatix.
Thanks! Buttermilk is a great place! I was trying my hand at HDR nature shots. I like how it looks but it does feel overwhelming. What would you recommend to make it better?
Personally, I hate HDR. It makes it look like you jacked the fill light in the RAW processor. Other than that, nice shots.
I use Photoshop, however, I wouldn't mind hearing your photo matrix tips
if you're interested, there's a $16 plugin called ReDynaMix from Media Chance software that can simulate HDR without multiple exposures. i find i actually use it more than i do Photomatix. it's very simple to use... you just open the image in photoshop, then the plugin from the filters menu. the image opens in a new window, and you can play with the sliders, brightness, saturation, etc., until you get it where you want it, then just hit the "process" button. and if it's a bit too overdone, you can use the "fade ____" command to tone down the output.
i agree with Schmoo, these are a bit overcooked... the HDR doesn't look natural at all. HDR tends to require a pretty delicate touch if you want to retain a natural appearance...
~ Rocky
"Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
Three Dog Night
Personally, I hate HDR. It makes it look like you jacked the fill light in the RAW processor. Other than that, nice shots.
you've probably never seen HDR done properly. if it's done right, you won't even know it's there, all you'll see is a bit better detail in the shadows and perhaps a bit more contrast in the sky, if there are any clouds. the problem is too many people overdo it, and the result looks like something from a cheap video game...
~ Rocky
"Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
Three Dog Night
if you're interested, there's a $16 plugin called ReDynaMix from Media Chance software that can simulate HDR without multiple exposures. i find i actually use it more than i do Photomatix. it's very simple to use... you just open the image in photoshop, then the plugin from the filters menu. the image opens in a new window, and you can play with the sliders, brightness, saturation, etc., until you get it where you want it, then just hit the "process" button. and if it's a bit too overdone, you can use the "fade ____" command to tone down the output.
i agree with Schmoo, these are a bit overcooked... the HDR doesn't look natural at all. HDR tends to require a pretty delicate touch if you want to retain a natural appearance...
I agree that they are overcooked :-P I don't know how to get the detail and dynamic range I want without making it look fake. What is the beat method of making it look real but really intense? Is there a guide to hdr that I should readthat helps with the ins andentire outs?
Nice shots of the falls. Lovely. On the other hand the PP isn't quite doing it for me. Like its not doing the images any justice in the way of beneficial impact. A different kind of look without much wow.
I woudn't use HDR unless you need it because of the dynamic range of the image. If the dynamic range of the image is too great for one shot, even shooting RAW, I would combine a few images (it rarely takes more than 2 or at most 3 for this sort of shot, in my experience), trying to keep the colors as natural as possible. The one time I used the HDR pro in photoshop, the results were completely unsatisfactory. I have been told that the better HDR packages allow you to tone things down, but I don't use HDR at all any more. I use exposure blending, which tends to produce very natural colors. There are many programs that will do it, I think (including some HDR programs), but I use the LR Enfuse plugin.
@paddler4 I have never heard of exposure blending, I shall give it a try. Thanks fot the tip! I agree the HDR pro in photoshop is not good if your going for life like images. I used photomatrix in my latest state park escapade which worked out much better IMO but when there is no sky I feel like I'm not getting the detail and dynamic range I want.
@choudhrysaab Thanks! I'm glade you like them. I think it is really good for the whole hyper realistic look.
Comments
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
“There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.”
What software did you use to process these? Ill can give you a few good tips if you're using photomatix.
Personally, I hate HDR. It makes it look like you jacked the fill light in the RAW processor. Other than that, nice shots.
if you're interested, there's a $16 plugin called ReDynaMix from Media Chance software that can simulate HDR without multiple exposures. i find i actually use it more than i do Photomatix. it's very simple to use... you just open the image in photoshop, then the plugin from the filters menu. the image opens in a new window, and you can play with the sliders, brightness, saturation, etc., until you get it where you want it, then just hit the "process" button. and if it's a bit too overdone, you can use the "fade ____" command to tone down the output.
i agree with Schmoo, these are a bit overcooked... the HDR doesn't look natural at all. HDR tends to require a pretty delicate touch if you want to retain a natural appearance...
"Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
Three Dog Night
www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
you've probably never seen HDR done properly. if it's done right, you won't even know it's there, all you'll see is a bit better detail in the shadows and perhaps a bit more contrast in the sky, if there are any clouds. the problem is too many people overdo it, and the result looks like something from a cheap video game...
"Out where the rivers like to run, I stand alone, and take back something worth remembering..."
Three Dog Night
www.northwestnaturalimagery.com
I agree that they are overcooked :-P I don't know how to get the detail and dynamic range I want without making it look fake. What is the beat method of making it look real but really intense? Is there a guide to hdr that I should readthat helps with the ins andentire outs?
http://choudhrysaab.smugmug.com
@choudhrysaab Thanks! I'm glade you like them. I think it is really good for the whole hyper realistic look.