I don't even know what I have here...

[Zigzag]

but I kinda like it. I took this picture with the intention of processing a bracketed set into an HDR image. Using photomatix and some photoshop elements 9 editing, this is what I came up with. I liked what I had, although I don't think it qualifies for what I was aiming for. My use of the programs is obviously still a little bit of guess and go, but hey, thats the way you learn.

My questions...

Is there a particular style of photography that one would call this?

I'd also like to know what you more experienced photographers think of the shot and processing. I'm learning little by little, and I'm sure any advice/critique would be helpful.

Here'e the picture: Mashita Island View | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thanks!!

Canon EOS Rebel T2i
18mm
F22
1/500

[Hill Country Hack]

I really like this! I don't know the style either, but I like it. The "levitating boat grabbed my attention, and it was hard for me to look elsewhere.

[ajax_andy]

Its a strange but interesting picture!

A few points i'd make about it are:

1) Your horizon is straight, but it shouldn't be as it means the water slopes to the right.. the pic needs to be rotated a degree or so to the left. If you look at where the water meets the horizon you'll see it slopes to the right

2) You have "halos" around the poles in the water... thats not a good thing in HDR images (although its hard not to get them).

What I do like though are the colours... have you ever tried adding texture to a picture? I think you could create a great painting almost by adding texture to this photo. There are lots of tutorials on the web for doing this and I think it could add a great extra element to the pic.

I might be wrong tho of course lol

[Rentham]

The processing is severely overcooked. Some people may like the completely unnatural, psychedelic levels of saturation and halos. But for me it is the hallmark of a poorly executed HDR photo. I'd back off whatever you're doing by like 75% or more.

[Tzetsin]

Originally Posted by Rentham

The processing is severely overcooked. Some people may like the completely unnatural, psychedelic levels of saturation and halos. But for me it is the hallmark of a poorly executed HDR photo. I'd back off whatever you're doing by like 75% or more.

See, this is the problem with asking professionals how your art looks. Hes perfectly right. its over saturated and the halos tell the story that other than auto photomatix theres been really very little artist input into the shot.

You could easily run that same shot through again, and adjust a few sliders to get rid of the halos. The saturated look wouldnt look as good though, and it would take away from the surrealness of the shot. Something you might try instead of removing the halos alltogether is just removing the halo on one side, or adjusting down a notch or two the brightness of the halos.

When your going for a more natural HDR look you dont want ANY halos. If your going for that whacked out surreal look, then I think the halos are more of an effect and help enhance the surrealness of the image. Others here wont agree with that statement because they know that halos are the result of a botched photomatix job, but your non professional viewers wont, and they'll like the image and wont even mention the halos.

All that said. HDR is more of an art form than a photographic technique. Only rarely does one use HDR to make an image look "natural" and YOU are the artist. This is not an excuse to be lazy with your images, but it really is up to you to add the elements you want in a picture. Re do that shot, pay attention to the halos, get rid of them, then compare your shots. Look for what makes each image work, and for what doesnt. This is not only how you learn the software, but its how you get better at photography as a whole.

Something else to watch out for when saturating an image is detail loss. I think that image really works with the loss of detail due to oversaturation, but this could easily affect your later works too. If you want to bring that detail back you'll have to drop the saturation a bit.

Actually, looking again, i'd like to see a bit more detail in the trees and water... but I like the colour. Something you might try to bring detail back is to run that image through again, keep the saturation as close to the same as that image without loosing the detal. Then open both images in PSE and layer the second detail shot under the original, then drop the opacity untill you get a bit of that detail shining through. Get rid of the halos in the second image too, that'll help drop the brightness in those areas down without removing it completely, or if you do want to get rid of them at this point you could burn em out with the burn tool. (not sure, does pse have dodge and burn tools?)

[Zigzag]

Thanks for all the advice. Being such a novice to photography, I had no idea that so much was wrong with this one image. I'm going to take it all in and try to re-do the processing starting from new, as well as editing this current shot and see what results I get. I will post the updated work here at some point within the upcoming week.

Again, thanks for the advice. Just lets me know I have a lot to learn, but it gives me motivation to get there!!

- Zag

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by Zigzag

Thanks for all the advice. Being such a novice to photography, I had no idea that so much was wrong with this one image. I'm going to take it all in and try to re-do the processing starting from new, as well as editing this current shot and see what results I get. I will post the updated work here at some point within the upcoming week.

Again, thanks for the advice. Just lets me know I have a lot to learn, but it gives me motivation to get there!!

- Zag

Just remember - even as a novice, what you think matters too... if you like your current results over the new one - that`s totally ok