Probably could have done the same with a single raw image from that D750. Not sure why you'd ever need 9 images to produce this.
I am not sure I follow, feel free to critique and expand.It seems to me you may have actually reduced the dr. However this is not a critique category so I will shut up already.
I am not sure I follow, feel free to critique and expand.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
The fact that you cannot tell it's HDR actually means it was done correctly, the cartoony look you might be thinking off is a ToneMap that has gone wildThe 750 supposedly has 14.5 stops of dr. Your image looks like it has maybe 8 stops. I agree there is much detail all over but that is to be expected from that camera. Many times and in many things less is more. Maybe you should try it with 3 instead of 9 and see what you have to work with? It looks as if the software had so many gradations of the image to work with it selected the average of averages therefore you obtained a flat result.
I cannot see that its HDR...........?
What I expect to see in an HDR image is, well, high dynamic range. I expect to see crisp, clean highlights; deep, rich shadows and vibrant midtones. The shot you posted, for whatever reason(s), appears muddy, soft and lacks any real color palette. The fact your final image does not look cartoonish does not mean processing was done as well as it could have been, it means you avoided the most common way of doing things wrong; but that's not the same thing as well-done HDR image.The fact that you cannot tell it's HDR actually means it was done correctly, the cartoony look you might be thinking off is a ToneMap that has gone wild ... here is a quick link explaining realistic hdr process versus the cartoony look that it seems both of you are expecting
https://www.fototripper.com/hdr-tutorial-make-realistic-hdr-photographs/
I took a single shot, it did not come out, pretty sure no camera has the range to capture that in a single shot. The direct sun made it hard to look in that direction. The reason for 9, I decided to give as much data to the combining software as I could, do not see a reason to not use it if I can.
If you allowed the camera to meter then sure, you're not going to get a shot you can use. If you metered for the brightness of the sun (which is still blown out here) you could do it. Most of the rest of the shot is likely within 3EV of each other.
I tried metering for the highlights but had a ton of black clip on the histo, you might be right that I could have pulled some or all of it, honestly I doubt it but will not argue.If you allowed the camera to meter then sure, you're not going to get a shot you can use. If you metered for the brightness of the sun (which is still blown out here) you could do it. Most of the rest of the shot is likely within 3EV of each other.
I tried metering for the highlights but had a ton of black clip on the histo, you might be right that I could have pulled some or all of it, honestly I doubt it but will not argue.
I think because I mentioned HDR everyone is getting hung up on that, forget how it was made, tell me your opinion on the final result. Some people said it looks flat and I see that, no issues but what I see is people advising on what a "HDR" should look like. Next time I'll probably not say how the shot was made.
A split ND would help a ton with the sun itself, I don't own a split/graduated only a full ND.Being old school (I haven't explored HDR yet) this photo cries out for a split ND filter over the lens, despite what
Tony Northrup thinks about filters.