Park Waterfall

[JMarro]

Hey all,

This is a photo from a few days back that was taken in a nearby park. It was taken using a Nikon D90 with a 18-105mm VR lens. The photo is an hdr all taken with the following specs:
ISO 200
21mm focal length
f/16
shutter speeds: 1/5, 1/13, and 1/2 sec
exposure compensations: -2,0,2
No Flash

Post Production software included both lightroom and photoshop. The images were combined and took out a few nit picky things. Also the sky was replaced cause i thought it looked a bit boring.

Just wanted to know what you guys would have done differently. Is the blending between the sky and trees too noticeable? Does the photo look overworked? Also, Is the railing on the side distracting enough to take out?

Thanks,
JMarro

Click for Larger version!


More realistic Version:

[navcom]

Hi!

The concept looks good and I like the composition. However, the HDR makes it look completely unrealistic. It looks more like a computer-generated cartoon image or a painting, not a photograph. If your goal was to get this effect, then it's awesome. If your goal was to bring out more contrast in a natural landscape photograph, then you've went way overboard.

If you can, I would try this without the HDR and see what you can do. HDR is a great technique but it's greatness ends when it becomes obvious it's been HDR'd. The reason HDR was originally employed was to try to increase the camera's dynamic range to match more of what the human eye sees....and no more (if you want to retain the natural look of the image). The best employment of HDR is one in which you cannot tell it was used.

HDR is a tool just like the dodge and burn brush or a camera filter. And just like the tools of the dark room, Photoshop, or filters, some use them to enhance the natural look of their images while others try to use them to create something other than a natural-looking image. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Just be aware that your image doesn't look like a natural landscape photograph.

Sorry! Just being honest!

[JMarro]

Thank you Navcom for your reply. I agree completely. The photo is very unrealistic. Although not what I originally intended, It appealed to me after a bit of experimentation. I just edited the above post to include a more realistic copy of the photo. This has the same post production techniques as the hdr photo. Which appeals to you guys more?

Thanks,
JMarro

[WVCoalMiner]

The second one looks better but I'm still not to keen on that sky.

[navcom]

MUCH better! Maybe even just a tad less HDR and it will look great.

I do agree with wvcoalminer that the sky still needs some work. It does kind of appear out of place. Maybe lighten it a bit? Not sure. It's not completely bad though.

The reason it probably looks bad is that it's "backwards"....dark sky, light terra firma. Makes it a unnatural, but as I said, not super bad.