first HDR: trees in the sunset

[crazzy88ss]

What do you guys think? Two exposures; 1 for the sky, 1 for the ground.

[FrankenPengie]

Not HDR but it is a neat looking pic. Probably could have waited for a little less sun and I think some cropping to bump out uninteresting stuff. This might help it fit into the forum rules of a max size of 600 pixels on the longest side.

[crazzy88ss]

interesting, as EVERY other forum I post pictures on is capable of resizing the images automatically :/

Where would you crop?

[FrankenPengie]

I wish I knew the web more or I'd help you on that. I do know that this site can work with URLs from pic hosting sites that include sizing instructions but you're posting a URL directly to a pic on your site.

At the top of the pic there is little interest in the clouds. At the bottom edge there is a dark strip. To the left there is some interest in the sky but not the ground. Right/bottom has a little too much going on. The crop I came up with is roughly 690Wx460H. It includes fair use of the rule of thirds. the trees are across the middle row, and left to right is sky/hill, tree then tree. Trim the dark strip at the bottom and the top third is all sky.

[Japaslavian]

As stated before, this isn't HDR, as HDR requires at least 3 images that are blended together, not just a pieced together image of good parts from different exposures.
The problem that arises from this image is an uneven mix of light that just looks peculiar, as you have very bright back lighting on the trees, but they are still completely visible, not silhouetted. Also, the edge of the hillside where you presumably separated the two exposures is getting a strange dark line that is resulting from your masking/erasing. The yellow color from the sunlight should be bleeding into the hillside, but since you've kept the hill from the exposure for the trees, it looks a little strange.
All in all, I'd say it looks far too unnatural for me.
Honestly, I think this would have made a great silhouette photograph as the sky is wonderful, but to each his own I suppose.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by crazzy88ss

interesting, as EVERY other forum I post pictures on is capable of resizing the images automatically :/

That's because we expect the people who post here to understand about digital images and pixel sizes....

I'm less of an HDR purist than the other posters. I can see that you have recovered a scene that would have looked interesting to the naked eye but suffered a blown out sky or extremely dark foreground when seen by a camera. It doesn't look artificially over-saturated or over-sharpened, which sets it apart from most "HDR" images but I think it was worth doing.

However, that's not to say I can't see a few things to be picky about. I don't like the dark clouds that are lurking up there - they look like dirty smudges and mar the overall effect. Also, both the sky and the trees look a little blurry and I would say the sky is still tending towards overexposed. What aperture did you use for that part of the shot?

Wulf

[GreenLantern]

Anybody know of a good "intro to HDR" tutorial or article that I can look at? It's something I keep hearing about but have never understood what it actually is.

Nice shot by the way. I like it.

[jiminyClickit]

GreenLantern,

Here's a link from clockdoc that shows an available program with a discussion/info about HDR, to get you started:

http://www.mediachance.com/hdri/index.html

[Okinawa]

Not bad, still quite dark on the small image imho.

[timkoo]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

Anybody know of a good "intro to HDR" tutorial or article that I can look at? It's something I keep hearing about but have never understood what it actually is.

Nice shot by the way. I like it.

a do-it-yourself via LR/CS3 HDR

http://www.photographycorner.com/tut...-two-exposures

if you want to get technical, this tutorial shows you 2 exposures but same principle apply.