My first try
- Thread starter Blacktop
- Start date
I'm with you on that. The second pick was just way overdone. I'm not a big HDR fan for that same reason. So easy to go crazy. There are some that are done tastefully and those are really beautiful.
Yeah, but the second one is more like "genuine HDR" (as opposed to "overdone", which gives impression that the "HDR surrealistic" effect - as it is called in Photoshop - had been applied to the regular photo). But both are well composed.
Exactly that kind of clouds (but in a black'n'white mode) I get with my Oly PEN, the mode dial being set to "art filters/dramatic tone". Similar to what can be found here:
http://goo.gl/NgbBBe
Exactly that kind of clouds (but in a black'n'white mode) I get with my Oly PEN, the mode dial being set to "art filters/dramatic tone". Similar to what can be found here:
http://goo.gl/NgbBBe
Last edited:
Vixen
Senior Member
I was going to comment that for a first try both were nice because they WEREN'T overdone 
Were these HDR on a single exposure? or multiple exposures? I only ask because metadata is popping up and with multiple exposures this doesn't normally show due to multiple sets of data in combined one shot.
Were these HDR on a single exposure? or multiple exposures? I only ask because metadata is popping up and with multiple exposures this doesn't normally show due to multiple sets of data in combined one shot.I was going to comment that for a first try both were nice because they WEREN'T overdone
5 exposures. 1 at the right exposure and 2 under and 2 over with 1 stop increments
Vixen
Senior Member
May not work well for 2 reasons a) those images are now jpegs and jpegs are no where near as good as RAW, so unless you processed jpegs in the first place....... b) the forum software may compress the files when uploaded, so they once again may have been degraded.
The forum software must somehow be able to extract metadata from 1 file of the set. I was just curious about this, hence my asking.
I think, if I am correct in thinking the top shot of the 5 was the 0 exposure, then it is a little underexposed. You really do need to get you base exposure correct to get the exposure coverage of highlights and shadows to give you the "best" HDR. It can be extremely difficult to get good coverage of exposure in all ares of your image. It is one area I struggle with especially with water shots
May not work well for 2 reasons a) those images are now jpegs and jpegs are no where near as good as RAW, so unless you processed jpegs in the first place....... b) the forum software may compress the files when uploaded, so they once again may have been degraded.
The forum software must somehow be able to extract metadata from 1 file of the set. I was just curious about this, hence my asking.
I think, if I am correct in thinking the top shot of the 5 was the 0 exposure, then it is a little underexposed. You really do need to get you base exposure correct to get the exposure coverage of highlights and shadows to give you the "best" HDR. It can be extremely difficult to get good coverage of exposure in all ares of your image. It is one area I struggle with especially with water shots
You maybe right. I shot it Raw but converted them to Jpeg so I could upload it here.
Also yes, the first pic is the 0 exposure, and yes it was under exposed.
My thinking was, that if I'm going to over/under expose 4 other shots, it doesn't really make a difference.
I was in aperture priority, so maybe next time I'll try full manual, and see what comes out.
Thanks for the advice..
Don't crop it! Don't! It's not just the 4k$ - the fence is protecting your...crop(s)!
But, seriously, a PARTLY cropped fence, could add to the composition. What do you think of this variation:
View attachment 80404
That's pretty good actually. Did you make it darker or are my eyes playing tricks on me again?
Excellent! even more dramatic and you lost some of the funky blue hues!