http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/...77fbd9ac_z.jpg
Hey all, just wondering what I could do to improve this picture. Personally, I think I should make the sky a little grayer.Any other tips?
Printable View
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/...77fbd9ac_z.jpg
Hey all, just wondering what I could do to improve this picture. Personally, I think I should make the sky a little grayer.Any other tips?
Another question I have: How can I get the "HDR look" from this photo? It seems a little dull and flat for an HDR.
The 'HDR look' comes from the way you tonemap the image during the HDR process. How did you generate your HDR?
I should also point out that your scene - gray sky, overcast lighting for green(ish) grass and a brown house - doesn't have a large intrinsic dynamic range. HDR is generally used on scenes with more dynamic range (bright sun/sky and shadows, etc.).
In general, though, I like the shot! [:)]
I like the shot as it is at the moment. It looks great! I really like the composition.
I personally wouldn't make the sky any grayer.
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
If he would increase the tones in the foreground and house it would give a more HDR feel I think. Try to decrease the shadowparts on the grass and the house and keep the background for what it is. The shadowparts are making the picture look natural.
I often think of a HDR image as a normal image with fill-light.
If you are looking for that extreme HDR look, I can't really help you. I prefer the more natural looking HDRs.
You have one lighter spot in the foreground, where does that come from?
Jan
</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Good Morning All:
I completely agree with you Jan, 100%. What an HDR looks like after being tone mapped is certainly a personal choice no doubt about that. To me what makes a fine art scene/photo is accurately reproducing what our eyes see in the scene which we all know is not always easy for cameras to do. Depending on what program is used makes a difference to some extent & they are not all equal. Photo-matrix and HDR Darkroom are examples of programs in which their algorithms allow the HDR to look more like paintings, if you want to use the options to do that. For those that like that look that is fine and good for them. To me it makes the HDR look fake, definitely man made and not to my taste at all. In my search for a program that makes the HDR look more natural with fill light I have found that HDR Exposure's algorithms allows you to do just that easier than with some other programs.
How HDR's are presented is a personal thing/opinion that can be bantered back and forth for all eternity. HDR's programs can be useful to enhance almost any scene. While a wider range of light to shadows, brighter to darker may be easier to be given a more dynamic look, they are not limited to such scene's. They can be used in a scene where the over all light is more homogeneous. The end product may not be as stunning looking as with a wider range of light, however HDR programs can be used to enhance what is there to work with.
Just my $.02
GodSpeed
Wayne
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>
Thanks for the pointers everyone!
I used Photomatix as the editing software, then Lightroom (I will learn Photoshop one day, I promise [:P]).
The bright spot in the grass was there in the original photo, just light from the sun I guess.
I made a new version of the pic, and I'm sure Jan will think I made it worse:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4095/...dda0b415_z.jpg
I'm going for the creepy look on this one. I guess I'll have to keep playing around with it until I'm happy...
I'll definitely look into HDR Exposure, hopefully it'll work out better than Photomatix.
Thanks again,
Bogdan
I am new here and read this article and agree with this article.Thanks to talking us about this article.
Acai Advanced Cleanse
Hi Bogdan. I actually prefer the first one to be honest. If I were editing this image to increase the drama in the sky I'd just use the burn tool in photoshop at a very low flow and very soft brush.
I haven't used Lightroom for a while but I believe you can use the mask tool to do a similar thing by selecting a -ve exposure and painting over the areas you want to darken.
That's what I'd do anyway, I like the shot all the same.
Cheers, Ben.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BogdanD
Honestly? [A] Yes you're right, I prefer the first one.
However you must like it, that's the most important fact. The fact is also that HDR comes down to personal taste really. I prefer the "natural" looking HDRs, however you're taste might be something completely different. In the ned there is no true good or bad shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BogdanD
Try to use the first photo and apply a graduated filter. That might give you the look that you want without losing the foreground color. Also it looks like you need quite some noise reduction on the sky now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BogdanD
To be honest I use the exact same combination of programs as you are using. I do my HDR is Photomatx and make sure my levels are about right. I leave my saturation at a normal/low point and increase those values to a point a like using Lightroom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BogdanD
Also make sure your working-input/output is set correctly in Photomatix. Set it to AdobeRGB if you're using that and to sRGB if you're using that. It made quite a difference for me. The picture I made before in Photomatix didn't look anywhere near the picture I saw after importing it to Lightroom.
Good luck with it!
Jan
Oh and Wayne, what's the site for HDR Exposure? If I just google it I get a lot of results, but no program called exactly HDR Exposure.
Thanks.
Oh and for the ones interested: I also tried HDR Darkroom, but it gave me a lot less detail, softer pictures and less vivid images. I don't like it.
Hi Jan:
It is understandable that it was hard to find in an internet search. First I got the name wrong, I wrote that it was HDR Exposure, when in fact it was HDR Expose. So please excuse my error. The second reason is that the name of the company is different Unified Color than the products name. Here is the link/ address http://unifiedcolor.com/ You can do a 30 day test to see if you like it and the last time I checked it was on sale for 1/3 off, from $149.00 down to $99.00. Both my wife and I like the look that we get from this program and feel that the final results is a very good combination of the photos entered to look like a naturally lit scene as we would see it with our eyes.
We both really dislike programs like Photo-Matrix and HDR Darkroom that make the scene look fake, man made or however you want to label them. There is nothing wrong with those programs and there is nothing wrong with the folks that like them and their end result. It is that just we don't like the results.
This information I got out of the article "High Dynamic Range Software" from the July 2010 issue of Outdoor Photography. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Godspeed
Wayne
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"]</input><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden" />
<div id="refHTML"]</div>
Thanks Wayne, I will check it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguide
Pfffuuuww ... I was almost afraid there was something wrong with me [;)]
You'll hear back from me! Can take a while since I'm pretty busy with post-processing a LOT [:P]