Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 20, 2009, 10:13 PM   #1
Member
 
MichaelT1i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Orange Co., NY
Posts: 45
Default my first HDR image

My first HDR image.... hoping to get some C&C to identify what I could have perhaps done better...



here is what it looked like under "normal" exposure:

__________________
Michael Egan
Orange Co., NY
Canon EOS Rebel T1i
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michael_egan

Last edited by MichaelT1i; Aug 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM.
MichaelT1i is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 20, 2009, 10:23 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Nice shot, just a bit too much sky in the frame.
Calicajun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2009, 10:51 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Good job Michael. I see you are going for the natural look. Good way to start off. Did making the 16 bit tiff work for you?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2009, 11:42 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
Nice shot, just a bit too much sky in the frame.

i agree none the less a good first attempt welcome to the world of hdr .... possibly the future of photography
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 3:25 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default +1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Good job Michael. I see you are going for the natural look. Good way to start off. Did making the 16 bit tiff work for you?
Hi Michael

Yes, I agree that it's good to go with the "natural look" for HDR's. I like what you've done. I'm no HDR expert, but I am learning.

Quick question first for Bynx, what do you mean about the 16 bit tiff working (or not). Is it better to process TIFFs rather than JPEGs for HDRs?

Michael Two minor points:
1) as others have said before, there is probably a bit too much sky (I'd cut off about a bit less than half of the HDR image's sky)
2) the HDR appears a bit too "magenta" (reddish) in tinge, I'm not sure if this is an outcome of the post processing or HDR... but it seems like the colour cast or something is slightly off and different than the non HDR.

Let's all keep on learning and sharing. Cheers

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 6:24 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pj1974 View Post
Quick question first for Bynx, what do you mean about the 16 bit tiff working (or not). Is it better to process TIFFs rather than JPEGs for HDRs?
There was a problem opening a RAW file in Photomatic Pro so I suggested for Michael to convert the RAW file to a 16 bitt TIFF. But I have no experience myself with RAW files since my camera doesnt make them. In understanding how HDR works, there is a conversion from 8 Bit to 16 or 32 Bit. But as I cant produce RAW files I havent paid much attention to that. As for what Michael has done, I believe its make an HDR. I wouldnt be critical on composition or subject right now. There is enough to criticize or comment about the HDR aspects of his picture. I forgot to mention I like the sharpness it seems to have over the original. I do notice a magenta cast but it is so slight I considered it to be my monitor. The more I look at the difference between the two pics the more I like what he has produced.

Last edited by Bynx; Aug 21, 2009 at 6:29 AM.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 8:45 AM   #7
Member
 
MichaelT1i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Orange Co., NY
Posts: 45
Default

Thank you folks for the comments....

I agree about the sky. I do remember thinking to myself that I forgot about the rule of thirds and had the horizon in the middle of the frame. I will crop out about half of the sky in my next go around.

Overall I am pretty pleased with the outcome, especially considering this was my first experiment with HDR and Photomatrix and I had no idea how to use the software...

I did have to convert the .cr2 RAW files to 16bit tiff files using my Canon supplied software because I couldnt get Photomatrix (v2.5) to process the original RAW files... I might upgrade to the newer version of Photomatrix if I find out it can handle the RAW files directly from my Canon 500D.

Again, I appreciate all the comments and suggestions... please keep them coming. Oh, and if anyone knows of more resources on-line to help me in learning the Photomatrix software and what all the little controls do, please pass those along!

cheers!
__________________
Michael Egan
Orange Co., NY
Canon EOS Rebel T1i
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michael_egan
MichaelT1i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 8:47 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
I forgot to mention I like the sharpness it seems to have over the original.
The thing that bothers me about this HDR is that the foreground seems unnaturally sharpened. I very much like the improved exposure across the image, which is the main point I presume. But at least on my monitor the sharpness of the foreground is vertigo-inducing and makes the shot look artificial. Other than that, I think it's a terrific example of what HDR can do for you.

Last edited by tclune; Aug 21, 2009 at 8:49 AM. Reason: fix ubc code
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 11:18 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2,193
Default

there was a problem with older versions of photomatix and raw as i found out myself i used to get a very green sort of tinge so i converted my raws to jpegs and did the hdr that way however now using version 3.2 (64 bit) all is well and im glad i also saved a copy of all those raw files
simple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2009, 11:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tclune View Post
The thing that bothers me about this HDR is that the foreground seems unnaturally sharpened. I very much like the improved exposure across the image, which is the main point I presume. But at least on my monitor the sharpness of the foreground is vertigo-inducing and makes the shot look artificial. Other than that, I think it's a terrific example of what HDR can do for you.
Wow, I think one of us has to get our monitor fixed. From where Im sitting the sharpness is no where near being over done. The aspects of the final HDR is spot on for a realistic rendition. Perhaps your vertigo is because of the accuracy you are looking at.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:58 PM.