My first HDR attempts. Not sure how much is too much. Some of them are more realistic, others a bit more abstract. Any comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The three cityscapes look natural, but very soft.

#3 looks a bit too processed/tone mapped for my taste. It has that cartooney drawn look to it.

Thanks for the comments kakomu. #3 was my attempt to try something different, but I agree that it looks too cartooney.

Actually, #3 is my favorite. It's an interesting perspective, and the rows of similarly colored cars (especially on the left side) is sort of surreal. #4 is pretty good, and I think it could benefit from a bit of perspective correction (and once straightened, the half light post coming into the left side of the frame will be cropped out).

As for the rest, the processing has left most of the images too dark. And the HDR has somehow rendered unnatural blues and greens. In fact, I'm not sure that any of those pictures had the DR to really warrant the tonemapping.

FWIW, I really think #3 is cool. The pylons look a bit weird if I study it too long but i really dig the look. Oh well, that's art, right?

rachka wrote:
My first HDR attempts. Not sure how much is too much.


First, I like the last 2 shots a lot. As for "how much is too much?" There are 2 schools of thought on this.

The first one is that HDR is a great tool for creating images that a camera simply cannot capture using one shot alone. The processing for this is minimal, and just enough to get an image on the screen or print that most closely resembles the one you saw when taking the shot. I think there are more "purists" in this group, and there's nothing wrong with this.

The other way is to use HDR processing to create more of an artistic (read: not realistic) rendering on the screen. Your one shot leans much more towards this school of though, and I think you know this. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with this, as long as you're not trying to pass it off as "real". I have seen some incredible images created this way.

Keep playing with it and see how it goes. I think you've done well so far.

PS...
Welcome to FM! And learn how to straighten your buildings too. Shots like the last one get better when you stand them upright.

Matt thanks a bunch! I've been reading about those two schools of thought and I can find beauty in both, but I think I like the more realistic approach better. I'll keep experimenting.

And I will learn to straighten my buildings. You made a very good point.

Great stuff on your website. Really like your wildlife and city photos.

I really like #3

Matt Philbin wrote:
PS...
Welcome to FM! And learn how to straighten your buildings too. Shots like the last one get better when you stand them upright.


Just wondering, but how would you straighten them in the last shot?

And while its not realistic I really like #3. It sorta reminds me of GTA.

In Photoshop Elements, there is a "Correct Camera Distortion" filter. This is a -13 setting on vertical perspective. Although there are many other ways to do this in other types of software, it is something that I have to do any time I shoot buildings with my Canon 17-40. There are also times when you want that look. It just seemed to me that on this shot it would have been better without the leaning buildings. If the OP objects to this, I will gladly take it down.

I belong to the "purist" group Matt mentioned. I think you did a good job on the processing. I also like the gritty look of #3.

Well done!

Thanks guys!