HDR attempt round 2 C&C wanted

[Z0_o6]

Any comments/criticism/advice is welcomed. I took these pictures earlier today at AFSil80's crib and I processed a few of them into HDR, with a couple different methods. I'm trying to improve at it, and get away from the overly fake "burnt marshmallow look" while still retaining stunning detail. Let me know what you guys think please!

[CHADbee]

i know you asked for my critique on these but its hard for me. i just dont like the look of HDR shots LOL

to be honest the location blows and ruins the shots. you got garden hoses, trash cans and other cars/trucks in your background. try taking the car to an area with no trees over head and use a circular polarizing filter to try and get rid of the reflections that come with shooting a black car. also look up the rule of thirds, figure what part of the car you want to use for that rule and go with it.

[Dirty Octopus™]

do all HDR's have to look warm?

[Z0_o6]

i know you asked for my critique on these but its hard for me. i just dont like the look of HDR shots LOL

to be honest the location blows and ruins the shots. you got garden hoses, trash cans and other cars/trucks in your background. try taking the car to an area with no trees over head and use a circular polarizing filter to try and get rid of the reflections that come with shooting a black car. also look up the rule of thirds, figure what part of the car you want to use for that rule and go with it.

Ok, I know you don't like the HDR look too much, I was going for a less extremely obvious processing effect. I can't disagree on the location, or at the very least I could have moved some stuff to keep it out of the way of the shot. It is that kind of advice that helps me improve my shots more than just hearing "cool pics bro" I would rather someone honestly tell me exactly WHY the shots could improve in their opinion, that way I can remember to actually try that next time. It doesn;t cost me anything to try again except time. Could you explain the rule of thirds a little more to me? I don;t really understand.


DO- The HDR process does warm the color temp of the pic up some, however in the program I use (Photomatix Pro) there is a setting to adjust the color temp. I purposely made these pictures extra warm, because I personally thought it gave them a little more.... "life" if you will. I will try to back that down a little next time and have the colors reflected a little more accurately and see how that turns out.

Reps for honest responses

[Princess12]

I haven't quite jumped on the HDR thing yet. Maybe it's just over my head lol. The picture with the bird bath in the little court yard area with the fence is pretty though.

[CHADbee]

Ok, I know you don't like the HDR look too much, I was going for a less extremely obvious processing effect. I can't disagree on the location, or at the very least I could have moved some stuff to keep it out of the way of the shot. It is that kind of advice that helps me improve my shots more than just hearing "cool pics bro" I would rather someone honestly tell me exactly WHY the shots could improve in their opinion, that way I can remember to actually try that next time. It doesn;t cost me anything to try again except time. Could you explain the rule of thirds a little more to me? I don;t really understand.

http://digital-photography-school.com/rule-of-thirds

basically its the way you compose/frame the shot. having you point of interest in the dead middle of the frame is very boring. read around on that whole site, they have alot of great info that helped me out when i first got my camera.

[xbn83]

All pics look soft, nothing sharp. You used f22 or f29 for all your pics. Why did you use that high of an aperture? Diffraction can cost you sharpness here. Pics look like they were taken from a point and shoot, not DSLR. They are lack of contrast, dull, and hazy looking. HDR?

[Nemesis]

i ruv yor herra tones

[MongolPup]

I want to see the original of the spitting hot fire photo.

[james]

sweet pics brah

[black_e92]

I like the first picture of the STI and the last one of the 240.

[speedminded]

The depth of this shot is amazing.

[Z0_o6]

All pics look soft, nothing sharp. You used f22 or f29 for all your pics. Why did you use that high of an aperture? Diffraction can cost you sharpness here. Pics look like they were taken from a point and shoot, not DSLR. They are lack of contrast, dull, and hazy looking. HDR?

the aperture was high because to be bluntly honest, i still haven't really wrapped my head around all the settings yet, so i just set it and try it out. I guess that lowering the aperture back down (all else being equal) would have yielded sharper images? And yes, I ran them through an HDR program.

[speedminded]

All pics look soft, nothing sharp. You used f22 or f29 for all your pics. Why did you use that high of an aperture? Diffraction can cost you sharpness here. Pics look like they were taken from a point and shoot, not DSLR. They are lack of contrast, dull, and hazy looking. HDR?

the aperture was high because to be bluntly honest, i still haven't really wrapped my head around all the settings yet, so i just set it and try it out. I guess that lowering the aperture back down (all else being equal) would have yielded sharper images? And yes, I ran them through an HDR program.

It's highly common to use such a high aperture for a landscape shot. For this style it's just fine, it allows depth and everything to be in focus. The softness is most likely due to a kit lens but can be fixed with a little sharpening in post processing. I serious doubt a remote and/or mirror lockup was used either, preventing 100% of all camera shake allowing for a more crisp shot.

The colors can be saturated a little more, maybe use a photo filter, then a slight adjustment in the S-Curve and/or levels.

[Mr. Clean]

I was going for a less extremely obvious processing effect.

i hear this a lot and don't understand it.

an HDR shot is impossible to get in one shot. the process is used to get full dynamic range of light in one shot. for it to have a processing effect is a necessity. it is what makes the shot successfully dynamic. if you don't like an over-processed look then don't do HDR.

and what chad said about rule of thirds is VERY important. it's hard to teach someone to have a good eye. you kinda just have to understand it. you can know what it is and still not know what to do with it. composition of the shot goes hand in hand with rule of 1/3s as well.



this shot is nice, but there are a lot of things that i would try and avoid:

1) the car
2) the side of the house
3) the garden hose
4) the placement of the bath in the pic (rule of 1/3s and composition apply here)

anyway... there's a mediocre critique for ya lolol. sounds like this is the kind of stuff you want to hear.

[Z0_o6]

i hear this a lot and don't understand it.

an HDR shot is impossible to get in one shot. the process is used to get full dynamic range of light in one shot. for it to have a processing effect is a necessity. it is what makes the shot successfully dynamic. if you don't like an over-processed look then don't do HDR.

and what chad said about rule of thirds is VERY important. it's hard to teach someone to have a good eye. you kinda just have to understand it. you can know what it is and still not know what to do with it. composition of the shot goes hand in hand with rule of 1/3s as well.


this shot is nice, but there are a lot of things that i would try and avoid:

1) the car
2) the side of the house
3) the garden hose
4) the placement of the bath in the pic (rule of 1/3s and composition apply here)

anyway... there's a mediocre critique for ya lolol. sounds like this is the kind of stuff you want to hear.

All of the shots except the 240 were made with 5 exposures. What I'm comparing to when I say "over-processed" is the very strong burnt marshmallow effect that I got on the S2000 when I tried an HDR with it.

I read the link Chad posted about the rule of 1/3rd's and will certainly keep it in mind on my next photo experiment. Normally I feel that my composition, while not breath taking by any means lol, isn't totally lacking, it just needs refinement.

You are correct, these are the kind of pointers I am looking for. I get tired of seeing people compliment shots that are obviously lacking any kind of attention to detail, and for me to improve I must find out what I need to work on and pay more attention to. I have been doing a little reading here and there, but the fact is to me, I will NEVER improve unless I get out there and just take a lot of pictures and find out what works through trial, error, and criticism. I take it all as what it is, helpful advice. Thanks!

[speedminded]

this shot is nice, but there are a lot of things that i would try and avoid:

1) the car
2) the side of the house
3) the garden hose
4) the placement of the bath in the pic (rule of 1/3s and composition apply here)

anyway... there's a mediocre critique for ya lolol. sounds like this is the kind of stuff you want to hear.

All this can be achieved with a camera phone

Composition will make or break a shot, sometimes with cropping it can be fixed though. You can't really teach composition, can offer pointers but in the end its having an eye for it and some car shots still look like they were straight from an autotrader ad.

[james]

hdr is a cop-out; a scapegoat - for bad photography.

no offense to the op.

post the originals please.

[speedminded]

hdr is a cop-out; a scapegoat - for bad photography.

no offense to the op.

post the originals please.

You couldn't be more wrong. There are PLENTY of situations were multiple exposures are required.


*edit*
Talk an old school film photographer that's shot architecture. I know plenty that have painstakingly cut film and pasted multiple exposures on top of each other essentially doing what HDR is to get a correctly exposed shot. Something we can do with photoshop with a few clicks in a matter of seconds took hours before.

[Mr. Clean]

quick google search came up with this amazing pieces of well done HDR. so i gotta agree with speedminded...

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008...-hdr-pictures/

[speedminded]

quick google search came up with this amazing pieces of well done HDR. so i gotta agree with speedminded...

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008...-hdr-pictures/

Those are more artistic, a few a bit overdone but it depends on what the client wants or what the desired end result is. Personally I prefer to keep things realistic or it goes from photography to more graphic design/art.

I want to see someone shoot a night or sunset scene of a high end home with large lit windows with a lighted fountain or swimming pool in the foreground. Most of the time there is no way you can exposure for the sky, the home, the landscape, the water, and the architectural lighting. It's simply not possible.

I shot a $47 million house in Palm Beach and they replaced all the "professional" photos that two different companies did with my shots because I used a very slight bit of HDR. I was able to expose the house and the bright blue sky and ocean in the back ground at the same time. Forget shooting interior and being able to expose for what is outside the windows at the same time unless it's that 5 minute window during sunrise or sunset matching the interior to the exterior....even then it's highly unlikely.

[james]

You couldn't be more wrong. There are PLENTY of situations were multiple exposures are required.

if by plenty of situations you mean new photographers that can't compose a shot, then load the three images into photomatix and "create" a more pleasing image, then lol, maybe you are right.

hdr is rubbish.

and LOLOLOL....a wrong opinion? subjective much?

also, "clients" asking for HDR? LOL

[boostedb16]

[QUOTE=Mr. Clean]quick google search came up with this amazing pieces of well done HDR. so i gotta agree with speedminded...

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008...-hdr-pictures/[/QUOTE i am with chadd on not liking HDR. there maybe 2 or 3 in the likn posted above that look like they were taken with a camera. the rest look like paintings.

[CHADbee]

hdr is a cop-out; a scapegoat - for bad photography.

no offense to the op.

post the originals please.

95% of the time i agree with this.

also to OP if you really want to get better get on POTN or other photography forums and ask for harsh critique of your shots. you have gotten alot of good advice in this thread about photography, but that is rare on IA. on your next shoot make a thread on a photography forum andd ask to have your photos picked apart and for the members to hold nothing back. in my experiences thats the best way to learn.

[.blank cd]

95% of the time i agree with this.

also to OP if you really want to get better get on POTN or other photography forums and ask for harsh critique of your shots. you have gotten alot of good advice in this thread about photography, but that is rare on IA. on your next shoot make a thread on a photography forum andd ask to have your photos picked apart and for the members to hold nothing back. in my experiences thats the best way to learn.

Then why do your pics still suck








~runs~

[CHADbee]

Then why do your pics still suck

~runs~

im still trying to find that out myself

lately i just get stuff like "i dont like the car". well who gives a fuck, POTN/cafe isnt a car forum its a photography forum yet everybody wants to critique the CAR in the picture instead of the PICTURE of a car

[rbf]

Keep trying you'll better understand the more you research,attempt and have fun.But what do I know?..

[Z0_o6]

I never intended to have any arguments start up!

Here are the original pictures for comparison's sake:

[speedminded]

if by plenty of situations you mean new photographers that can't compose a shot, then load the three images into photomatix and "create" a more pleasing image, then lol, maybe you are right.

hdr is rubbish.

and LOLOLOL....a wrong opinion? subjective much?

also, "clients" asking for HDR? LOL

How on earth does this come out as somebodies opinion?

hdr is a cop-out; a scapegoat - for bad photography.

no offense to the op.

post the originals please.

And yes, when a billion dollar real estate company challenges you to do something nobody has been able to do before I will bite. Dark 2500 sq. ft. house, with dark walls, and a covered back porch for $995,000 with a bright ass white back courtyard and a pool the size of the house. There is no way possible to shoot the view through the house looking out the back without multiple exposures. Got a dark room, an even darker porch, and a bright ass pool. Expose for all three accordingly, blend, and done...i've never even used an HDR program. Using all layers and manual level adjustments after masking each.




Look in a Dupont Registry Homes, Luxury Homes, Trends Magazine and tell me you don't see HDR being used.

http://www.dupontregistry.com/homes/





http://trendsideas.com





http://www.luxuryhomemagazine.com/



I can't stand this pic but you get the point:









Think none of these are using multiple exposures?

http://www.americangolf.com/luxhome/

[speedminded]

I think this is CGI lol!



...even though the others of it look like real photographs