Who prefers which?

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 09:44:40 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| Part of my continued messing around with HDR: two tratments of an HDR
| shot looking up one of our west coast beaches (Muriwai) early on a
| mid-winter afternoon. The low sun (just out of frame) makes this a
| difficult shot from any point of viw. The question is, which treatment
| is the best way to handle it? Opinions are wanted.
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ttx3jvyvi..._HDR2.jpg?dl=0
|
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc9pwr9crg..._HDR3.jpg?dl=0

You didn't mention anything about how you did
them, or where you started from. To my mind the
atmosphere or evocation is the main thing, and despite
the grand landscape, that didn't come through. I assume
you can see that. What value is color tweaking if the
photo doesn't end up "touching"?

In HDR3 I was primarily trying to bring out from the shadows the rocks
in the bottom LH corner.

In HDR2 I had another try placing more emphasis on colour. It worked,
as far as the rocks were concerned, but I didn't think it dealt with
rocks succesfully.

A local argument developed about which was the most succesful line of
attack and at this point I decided to post my original question.

Both images have been clearly damaged: transparent
hair on woman in foreground; outline figures on right.
Aside from that, I see #2 as oversaturated to the point
of bordering on garish, like a resort brochure. #3 has
potential, but turned out a bit too dark, or a bit too
something. It just doesn't communicate the powerful,
timeless melancholy I'd expect from such a shot. Nor
does it communicate anything else.

Agreed

I think a good example of that is the photo of Brooklyn
Bridge a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember who took
it. There was too much green. One could find fault. But
it had great atmosphere. SDs photos also, often, have
great atmosphere.

That's also what keeps me from practicing my photography
skills: I'm good working with digital images, but I've never
developed the knack for capturing profound images in
photos. I guess it takes a lot of practice.

I don't see the point of "HDR" without a specific purpose.
If a photo needs work you work on it. Why call it HDR?
There's an example here of a composite photo that's
obviously improved by "HDR":

https://digital-photography-school.c...r-photography/

But I wouldn't call that HDR. It's just creative editing.
On the other hand, oversaturation is merely oversaturation.
Richer is not better. (As we learned in the 60s with
day-glo colors.

In this case HDR was most defitely required to handle the range of
brightness. The reflection off the sea was so bright that it was not
possible to look at it with the naked eye.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 09/04/2017 10:20 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR: two tratments of an HDR
shot looking up one of our west coast beaches (Muriwai) early on a
mid-winter afternoon. The low sun (just out of frame) makes this a
difficult shot from any point of viw. The question is, which treatment
is the best way to handle it? Opinions are wanted.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ttx3jvyvi..._HDR2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc9pwr9crg..._HDR3.jpg?dl=0


In both images, I don't like the foreground. By cropping the bottom at
the closest people (adult on right with child), then I could like either
photo.
HDR2 is bright and airy, maybe a bit blown out in the distant center.
HDR3 is more dramatic, and slightly my personal favorite.

But the foreground has to go with both. In HDR2, it's distracting. In
HDR3, it looks like an oil slick.

I didn't notice the ghost images until SD pointed them out- spoil sport!
On the darker image, they are less apparent.

Thanks for sharing!

--
Ken Hart

Eric Stevens:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR...

Davoud:
Stop messing with gimmicks. Go and take some pictures.

Opinions are wanted.

Ugly and uglier. You used a so-called high-dynamic-range technique to
limit the dynamic range in two photographs. A single photo with 30
seconds of treatment in Lr would have aced the scene.

Eric Stevens:
I have my doubts. The dynamic range covers from the reflection of the
sun off the sea to the dense black sand in the foreground.

Doubts about what? Lightroom's ability to handle such an exposure? Did
you try it in Lightroom?

How would you handle the exposure?

As I said: Lightroom, maybe followed by Photoshop. But it's moot; I
doubt I would have photographed that scene at that time of day.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 9/4/2017 10:20 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR: two tratments of an HDR
shot looking up one of our west coast beaches (Muriwai) early on a
mid-winter afternoon. The low sun (just out of frame) makes this a
difficult shot from any point of viw. The question is, which treatment
is the best way to handle it? Opinions are wanted.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ttx3jvyvi..._HDR2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc9pwr9crg..._HDR3.jpg?dl=0


Up to the maker. The viewer doesn't count.

--
PeterN

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 20:22:05 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR...

Davoud:
Stop messing with gimmicks. Go and take some pictures.

Opinions are wanted.

Ugly and uglier. You used a so-called high-dynamic-range technique to
limit the dynamic range in two photographs. A single photo with 30
seconds of treatment in Lr would have aced the scene.

Eric Stevens:
I have my doubts. The dynamic range covers from the reflection of the
sun off the sea to the dense black sand in the foreground.

Doubts about what? Lightroom's ability to handle such an exposure? Did
you try it in Lightroom?

How would you handle the exposure?

As I said: Lightroom, maybe followed by Photoshop. But it's moot; I
doubt I would have photographed that scene at that time of day.

What then should I make of your comments about how to process it?

I made those photographs partly for the challenge of processing them
afterwards.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote

| In this case HDR was most defitely required to handle the range of
| brightness. The reflection off the sea was so bright that it was not
| possible to look at it with the naked eye.

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

Eric Stevens:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR...

Davoud:
Stop messing with gimmicks. Go and take some pictures.

Eric Stevens:
Opinions are wanted.

Davoud:
Ugly and uglier. You used a so-called high-dynamic-range technique to
limit the dynamic range in two photographs. A single photo with 30
seconds of treatment in Lr would have aced the scene.

Eric Stevens:
I have my doubts. The dynamic range covers from the reflection of the
sun off the sea to the dense black sand in the foreground.

Davoud:
Doubts about what? Lightroom's ability to handle such an exposure? Did
you try it in Lightroom?

Eric Stevens:
How would you handle the exposure?

Davoud:
As I said: Lightroom, maybe followed by Photoshop. But it's moot; I
doubt I would have photographed that scene at that time of day.

Eric Stevens:
What then should I make of your comments about how to process it?

Worth what you paid me for them and not a penny less. If I had the raw
image that I would have made there, if I would have made a photo there
at that time, which I would not have, it would be single exposure(s).
Bracketed, perhaps, but not HDR. I would see what I could do with it in
Lr, using highlights and shadows adjustments, perhaps the graduated
filter.

I made those photographs partly for the challenge of processing them
afterwards.

Did you say what software you used? Forgive me if I missed that. It was
a fail, IMO, but I again remind you what my opinion costs. If you are
happy with the pictures what else matters?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:21:46 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR...

Davoud:
Stop messing with gimmicks. Go and take some pictures.

Eric Stevens:
Opinions are wanted.

Davoud:
Ugly and uglier. You used a so-called high-dynamic-range technique to
limit the dynamic range in two photographs. A single photo with 30
seconds of treatment in Lr would have aced the scene.

Eric Stevens:
I have my doubts. The dynamic range covers from the reflection of the
sun off the sea to the dense black sand in the foreground.

Davoud:
Doubts about what? Lightroom's ability to handle such an exposure? Did
you try it in Lightroom?

No. Nor did I try it in Irfan view. I was trying it in Photoshop.

Eric Stevens:
How would you handle the exposure?

Davoud:
As I said: Lightroom, maybe followed by Photoshop. But it's moot; I
doubt I would have photographed that scene at that time of day.

Eric Stevens:
What then should I make of your comments about how to process it?

Worth what you paid me for them and not a penny less. If I had the raw
image that I would have made there, if I would have made a photo there
at that time, which I would not have, it would be single exposure(s).
Bracketed, perhaps, but not HDR. I would see what I could do with it in
Lr, using highlights and shadows adjustments, perhaps the graduated
filter.

I'm quite happy to pass you a single exposure if that is what you
want.

I made those photographs partly for the challenge of processing them
afterwards.

Did you say what software you used? Forgive me if I missed that. It was
a fail, IMO, but I again remind you what my opinion costs. If you are
happy with the pictures what else matters?

Am I happy? Why do you think I invited opinions?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Davoud:
Doubts about what? Lightroom's ability to handle such an exposure? Did
you try it in Lightroom?

Eric Stevens:
No. Nor did I try it in Irfan view. I was trying it in Photoshop.

Never heard of "Irfan view."

I'm quite happy to pass you a single exposure if that is what you
want.

No, thanks. I don't have the time for it and also it wouldn't be your
photo anymore; you might have pulled the trigger, but if I reworked it
extensively it would be our photo. The only time I process photos for
others is when teaching newbies astro-image processing
http://www.primordial-light.com.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:53:54 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 5 Sep 2017 03:54:09 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 5 September 2017 03:20:00 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
Part of my continued messing around with HDR: two tratments of an HDR
shot looking up one of our west coast beaches (Muriwai) early on a
mid-winter afternoon. The low sun (just out of frame) makes this a
difficult shot from any point of viw. The question is, which treatment
is the best way to handle it? Opinions are wanted.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ttx3jvyvi..._HDR2.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hc9pwr9crg..._HDR3.jpg?dl=0
--


I;d have prefered teh one in the middle of these two shots.
I find the 1st version to bright in the centre and top and the 2nd one to dark especailly at the bottom and top lefthand sides.

Yes. So would I.

Here is my third attempt
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9i5rud6pkk..._HDR4.jpg?dl=0

Please bear in mind that I have not been aiming at a picture which I
could hang on the wall (although that would have been nice) so much as
an image which captures the range of light and and gives an impression
of what a viewer would actually have seen when looking up the beach on
that occasion - bright, glaring and highly contrasted. Most of all
viewing was difficult.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens