Took a speed-light outside...

Dreadnote

Decided to get out of the middle school gym and play around with one speed-light outside (mainly because I didn't want to carry more than that on this outing). Also, I recently picked up a copy of Nik's HDR Pro 2.

How can I improve for next time? Is the post work toooooo much?

1)

digidrone

Nice image!
I like it.
The halo-ing (?) around the trees isn't bad at all...
Single frame?

Dreadnote

Actually 9 frames, 1 stop apart. Never did HDR before. Probably didn't need that many but was just goofing around.

Art Scott

You did a fantastic job....jmho.

Dreadnote

Art Scott wrote: »

You did a fantastic job....jmho.

Thanks Art, I appreciate it.

Dreadnote

Here is another from that same set...

2)


2) reprocessed

ian408

You're on the right track. However for your first shot, the flash power is too high. You can mitigate that by
dialing back the power a bit and by adding a warming gel-it doesn't take much though keep in mind that
the more power you use, the less effect a colored gel will have.

I think the second is closer. Love the dramatic sky.

lifeinfocus

Dreadnote wrote: »

Here is another from that same set...

2)

I saw a presentation the other day on HDR so I know just that amount about it. Given that, is the photo of the person one image and the background multiple images that got the HDR treatment?

Phil

Dreadnote

lifeinfocus wrote: »

I saw a presentation the other day on HDR so I know just that amount about it. Given that, is the photo of the person one image and the background multiple images that got the HDR treatment?

Phil

#2 is just one photo shot raw. In Lightroom I made three versions of it. One as shot in camera, one with the exposure dropped 1 stop, and one with the exposure pushed one stop. The three were then merged in HDR Pro and then I added the non HDR version of the unaltered photo as a layer in photoshop, masked out everything except the person so the HDR background would show and sharpened that layer separately.

BrettDeutsch

IMO, there's too much processing in #1. It looks like a composite shot, not HDR. #2 has the same problem, just not as much. I think ultimately the problem is the light source doesn't look real since it falls so strongly on the subject(s) but not on the other objects near the subjects.

Dreadnote

BrettDeutsch wrote: »

IMO, there's too much processing in #1. It looks like a composite shot, not HDR. #2 has the same problem, just not as much. I think ultimately the problem is the light source doesn't look real since it falls so strongly on the subject(s) but not on the other objects near the subjects.

Ok i reworked 2) a little bit and put it under the original. Is that more in the right direction, evening out the foreground lighting, recropped, etc... or no...?

Dreadnote

ian408 wrote: »

You're on the right track. However for your first shot, the flash power is too high. You can mitigate that by
dialing back the power a bit and by adding a warming gel-it doesn't take much though keep in mind that
the more power you use, the less effect a colored gel will have.

I think the second is closer. Love the dramatic sky.

Yeah, I think you might be right. Thanks! One of these days I'm going to spring for a light meter. I'm seriously tempted by the new touch screen Sekonic that you can control your PW's with.

ian408

I like the original composition and overall processing in #2 better. But, I like what you did processing your subject in the updated #2 (does that make sense?).

novicesnapper

Man, I really digging how the clouds are obscuring that peak in the far left. I like them both myself, very dramatic. Nice catch!

thelightguy

Nature is so amazing. Sure the photographers and equipment used plays a big part, but there is just something about nature that is captivating. Thanks for sharing.