The image of the two cabins in a rural setting looks inviting. Yet, the image exposure here leaves the cabins too dark in relation to the sky, partly from the eye's perception of the image. To see what I mean, try putting your hand over the sky area while gazing directly at the nearest cabin wall. Detail begins to emerge there, solely due to perception. Scrolling down also blocks the sky, and then the viewer can see the underexposure of the cabins in isolation. Hence, the exposure requires a balance between the foreground and the background. Put another way, the existing imbalance now creates an unrealistic view of the scene. Further, this imbalance confuses the viewer as to the main subject, because the eye tends first to go to the brighter sky area, although the cabins dominate the frame. Interestingly, cropping out the cabin on the right improves the image somewhat. Try blocking it with your hand to see this effect. In addition, you can evaluate the imbalance by locating the intersections of the standard composition lines. Only the jagged cloud formation presents a point of worthy interest. The other intersections look humdrum. I believe the photographer wanted to capture the feel of the cabins as somewhat quaint while comfortable getaways in a backcountry setting during a gorgeous sunset. This purpose has been achieved but as a snapshot lacking technique for maximum visual impact. Thankfully, the modern digital image allows multiple treatments and a faster learning curve. This photographer should continue to refine his craft. In closing, let me suggest he consider buying this highly instructional book: Photographic Composition, by Ben Clements and David Rosenfield. (Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1974.) This book presents its material from a tried-and-true traditional standpoint, and does so from before the advent of the digital image age. You will have to buy it used, but this book will advance and sensitize your skills for creating the most satisfying images with a camera.
I presume you mean that photomatix was used with 2 raw files. Most people refer to this as an HDR rather than a blend. HDR uses an algorithm that selects the best exposure out of several (2 in this case) exposures. Whereas most refer to blending as doing the same manually by painting over areas to expose the right exposure.
The usual problem with HDR are i) causes haloing, ii) causes softness were the two exposures do not align, iii) makes shadows look unrealistic, and iv) removes contrast between shadowed and unshadowed areas.
Haloing is caused by the program being confused near gradients. I don't see any here.
Softness is causes either by the picture taken in a different spot or somthing moving slightly. I see a bit of that in the leaves but pretty good. I would avoid leaves in the foreground since that the further away the smaller the movement. The clouds also look a bit smeared.
Shadow loss is a bit noticable here
The contrast between dark and lit areas is apparent in this picture.
The picture lacks detail in the front building suggesting you did not have enough images to belend.
What I do in processing is to blend the single image with the hdr image (hdr as base and single as layer) usually by about 2/3 opacity to get the shadows back while having detail.
In summary I think it is good but you need more exposures to blend and turn the hdr down a bit.
