To HDR or not, that is the question

[Ewie]

Here is two post processed versions of a shot I took this evening while out walking. I love this spot as you feel like you're in the middle of nowhere and yet suburbia is a mere 10 minute walk away.

I bracketed my exposures with the intention of creating an HDR image thus;

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2339549649/" title="Relax &amp; Reflect by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2002/2339549649_6d9921ef17.jpg" width="500" height="176" alt="Relax &amp; Reflect" /></a>

But due to the breeze and slow shutter, the grass and surrounds appear quite blurry. This is accentuated by the HDR process.

So I played around in Photoshop with just one of the exposures and came up with this;

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2340390888/" title="Relax &amp; Reflect II by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2104/2340390888_81848bf1b5.jpg" width="500" height="177" alt="Relax &amp; Reflect II" /></a>

Exposure 0.8sec @ F22, ISO100, 16mm

My question is which one of the two processes do you think work better for this shot? Please explain why.

Also, what is your opinion on the level of noise in these images? Both have been run through Noise Ninja, however I think that the HDR process has added noise? Would appreciate your thoughts.

[forever fallen]

Hi Ewie,
Strictly as a total newb I much prefer the top image (with HDR).
The color is much richer. :)

[Sime™]

Hey Ewie, I think your non HDR image is just great. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that everywhere I look someone is doing another HDR image. So, maybe i'm just a bit... um... over HDR?.. Both of my current photography mags both have HDR's on the front... it's an epidemic - they're taking over!... that's not to say that yours doesn't look lovely. "it's me, not you" ha!

[Ewie]

Hey Sime, You're probably right, HDR appears to be the "in thing" right now. For me I'm using HDR to develop my landscape technique trying to overcome the bright sky vs dark foreground thing while others tend to go for the artsie look.... I prefer to stay as close to natural as possible (if possible)

Thanks for the feedback

Ewie

[wulf]

When I saw the title, my immediate thought was "not" - like Sime, I think I've seen too much of this technique, including plenty that seem like blind applications of the processes involved.

It is hard to comment if you have overdone the details without being able to see larger versions but I surprised myself by preferring the brigher tones of the first one. It is not big enough to see the details but the other looks dull and grey in comparison.

Wulf

[Major_Small]

I'm with the other two. Here, I like the HDR version better, but I'm almost sure the same thing can be done with a curve adjustment. HDR, like selective coloring, has it's place - but too many people use it too often and with too heavy a hand.

[Ewie]

It is hard to comment if you have overdone the details without being able to see larger versions

Hi Wulf, I like HDR for combining varous exposures together to take advantage of a wide dynamic range but I have also seen some pretty horrid images that look a little too wierd for my taste. The full size images are both on Flickr when you click through, let me know if you're having problems getting to them.

I'm almost sure the same thing can be done with a curve adjustment. HDR, like selective coloring, has it's place - but too many people use it too often and with too heavy a hand.

Hi Major, there is a curves adjustment layer in the second image. I think I would prefer using curves to achieve the bright colours if I could but I think the dynamic range between the forground and sky would become an issue in a single image.

Thanks guys for the feedback, does anyone know of a tutorial that covers blending exposures in Photoshop rather than tonemapping HDR?

[wulf]

I did look before (and just checked again) but can't see the all sizes button on Flickr.

Wulf

[Major_Small]

Hi Major, there is a curves adjustment layer in the second image. I think I would prefer using curves to achieve the bright colours if I could but I think the dynamic range between the forground and sky would become an issue in a single image.I don't know about that... I'm sure at most it'd need a selective curves, but the original doesn't seem so dynamic as to need HDR. I'm willing to give it a shot if you're alright with that.

[Ewie]

I did look before (and just checked again) but can't see the all sizes button on Flickr.

Wulf, I checked my Flickr settings and opened up the download options, that might fix things. :)

I don't know about that... I'm sure at most it'd need a selective curves, but the original doesn't seem so dynamic as to need HDR. I'm willing to give it a shot if you're alright with that.

No problem Major, infact I've uploaded a full sized, unedited jpg image here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/2340658707_79b0129078_o.jpg), feel free to play and re-post. Am keen to know what changes you make.

[wulf]

Yes - I can see that now, thanks. I stick with my opinion, that the HDR version is the better of the two (and the other looks flat and dull in comparison). I think one of the secrets is that you have not gone overboard on the effect. Perhaps it could be toned down a little but your result is very tasteful.

Wulf

[Ewie]

Cheers Wulf, thanks for the positive feedback. :)

[jdepould]

Good HDR images are rarely obvious. I agree with most of the people above that it's way overdone.

In this case, I think the first image is good, but you might need to back it off a little bit, the colors are definitely very rich and it's well-composed.

[Ewie]

Good HDR images are rarely obvious. I agree with most of the people above that it's way overdone.

In this case, I think the first image is good, but you might need to back it off a little bit, the colors are definitely very rich and it's well-composed.

Thanks jdepould, I went back and played around some more here's the results.

1. HDR - wound back a bit.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2341717651/" title="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2341717651_e26a15cb14.jpg" width="500" height="209" alt="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit" /></a>

2. Blended exposures rather than tonemapped

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2341715121/" title="Ambury Seat Blend Edit by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2341715121_38e7f4be37.jpg" width="500" height="213" alt="Ambury Seat Blend Edit" /></a>

I'm thinking the blended version works better?

[jdepould]

It does, but I think you need to dial the sky back a bit, the colors aren't strong enough. Sorry, it's like a three bears thing.

[Major_Small]

Here's my attempt at duplicating what you came up with:
<img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/4507599_1ddc305a81_o.jpg" style="border:none">
<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2341715121_38e7f4be37.jpg" style="border:none">
I had to do separate curve adjustments for the sky and the rest of the shot, and I think I bumped up saturation a little for the sky as well. Not too sure there, as there were a few things lost in a sea of undo/redo >.< I could dial the sky in closer to what you came out with, but I think that's close enough for this purpose :)

Personally, I like more contrast... something closer to this:
<img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/4507618_751706815e_o.jpg" style="border:none;">

[Ewie]

Well done Major, they all look great. I'm with you in preferring the slightly higher contrast version. Thanks for the tips.

Ewie

[darrell]

Here's my try...

<a href="http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x168/dleblanc33/tohdrornottohdr.jpg?t=1207320274"><img src="http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x168/dleblanc33/tohdrornottohdr.jpg?t=1207320274" width="500" border="0"></a>
Click on the picture to get the larger, non-distorted size.

[drummerdip]

Thanks jdepould, I went back and played around some more here's the results.

1. HDR - wound back a bit.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2341717651/" title="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2341717651_e26a15cb14.jpg" width="500" height="209" alt="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit" /></a>




this photo looks like its a screen shot for a movie, and i kinda like that better, but maybe its just me

[Dotita]

Thanks jdepould, I went back and played around some more here's the results.

1. HDR - wound back a bit.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2341717651/" title="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2341717651_e26a15cb14.jpg" width="500" height="209" alt="Ambury Seat HDR2_Edit" /></a>



This is the shot I like better. Of all ones, Uf... a lot of similar pictures with slight differences... But this shot is the one that got me thinking about the scene... It´s like two imaginary people are watching the sunset, that it´s behind the photographer.

I think that the perfect shot is the one that shows the mood you want to give to the scene.... and that it´s only known by the one that took the pic. :D

[ladytx]

If you are wanting to use just one image to avoid the blurring from the grass movement you can achieve somewhat of an hdr effect with the dodge and burn tools. I have also added a color filter. All done in photoshop.

<a href="http://s101.photobucket.com/albums/m46/ladytx/?action=view&current=relaxpostprocess.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m46/ladytx/relaxpostprocess.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Alex168]

How about just HDRing the bench and leave teh background normal?

[Aperture Nine]

My question is which one of the two processes do you think work better for this shot? Please explain why.


No question about it. The first one. The blurry surroundings looks good, almost perfect. The main motive is sharp and well lit, and the blurry surroundings goes well with it. The contrast and shadows makes the first image look very good, and the blurry surroundings are fine in an evening shot like yours.

I think Major_Small hit the spot with this one:

http://static.zooomr.com/images/4507618_751706815e_o.jpg

[lacealou81]

just my pitiful little opinion, but I can hardly tell it's not sharp...the range of color and such is so beautiful...I much prefer the first one.

[Mr Guy]

Thanks jdepould, I went back and played around some more here's the results.

2. Blended exposures rather than tonemapped

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozzie_nz/2341715121/" title="Ambury Seat Blend Edit by Ewie_NZ, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2109/2341715121_38e7f4be37.jpg" width="500" height="213" alt="Ambury Seat Blend Edit" /></a>

I'm thinking the blended version works better?

The one advantage this one has, for me, is that it maintains the lights on the far shore in a way I don't feel the others do. It seems to me to need those lights to be distinct, to emphasize the natural setting around the bench. To me, this one gives a sense of being inviting but alone, perhaps "alone but not lonely". Guess it depends on what you're shooting for!