Opinion?

jdgibney

jdgibney

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
246
So, I've taken a lot of photos out that way the last few years. I wouldn't consider myself a landscape photographer, and post-processing is definitely a weak spot that I'd like to improve. I posted an image earlier on FB:
JDG_5487.jpg
And a friend asked if he could mess with the raw image, and I said sure, not knowing he was going to just go the HDR route (while making three exposures from the same image), so after I saw his result, I did my own using Lightroom to create a +1 and -1 stop exposure and then used Photomatix to come up with:
zionHDRsm.jpg

I know it doesn't look cartoony HDRish, but it still seems a bit over-processed. Looking for opinions and also any good direction for post-processing (good tutorials/books/etc) would be awesome.
 
I prefer the first version over the HDR, though the HDR version certainly isn't over-the-top like they can be.
 
I agree with Randy. I personally don't like the way HDR looks. The natural look is more appealing to me. The only time I think it's a good idea to use HDR is when there's a lot of contrast between light and dark spots in a photo to even it out.
 
thanks both of you, I agree and personally like the first one better too.
 
I agree with both of you, I also prefer the first image over the second one. Even without overdone the HDR it still looks HDR-ish.
I used Photomatix for a while for some of my shots and they never looked natural.
Right now I only use it for extreme light situations that Lisa mentioned earlier.
 
I agree, and there's probably more I can do with the original image, and this isn't even one of my favorite images, but it was one I wanted to mess around with.
 
Definitely the first one. When I do HDR or fusion (which is what I almost always do now days) I typically blend it in PS that with the midtone (or favorite) exposure to bring a more natural look out but also keep the added dynamic range. I feel this gives me the best of both worlds.
 
Like everyone else has said, I prefer the first. I'd brush in a little more contrast in the foreground and maybe knock the exposure down 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop or so in the sky with the graduated filter tool (and maybe even sneak in a tiny bit more saturation in the sky to pull out more of those pink/magenta hues. Definitely on the right path though. I think the more you get in touch with localized editing (versus global), the better you'll feel about your processing. It's fun stuff.
 
Tim, I have a LOT to learn it seems, I don't know much about localized editing, most of my work is people, okay, all of my WORK is people, most of it is for the newspaper (quick edit, send, print), this is all very new to me.

gloo, I tried enfusing with the oriignal (using LR/Enfuse in Lightroom) and got:
ZionSunrise.jpg
 
I agree with Nick and Tim.
I rarely combine images, as I am more satisfied with 1 shot, 1 image. I am old fashioned I guess.
Having said that, my suggestion would be to really learn the software that works with the way you work. You could greatly improve, I think, the shot you posted by learning the software, applying tools to lighten and allow the red rocks to "glow", picking up the highlights in the sky. Localized editing is a wonderful thing.
 
Miss Buffalo said:
can someone explain how to edit something localized?
I just started using real editing software and am interested how to do it.
Do you use a specialized tool?
Sorry for my noob questions...
Click to expand...
I spend a lot of time messing around with my images -- like I don't have a life anyway. I use Photoshop CS5 and the Nik software plugins. I often use HDR to simulate the effect of a split filter for balancing the sky with the land. Or for bringing out or holding back certain parts of an image. And I almost always do some local burning or dodging. Here's an original, unprocessed shot from last week's trip:

plain_DSC6144.jpg

I'm still messing around with it, but here's what I've done so far.

a_DSC6144.jpg

And I have the full set of HDR exposures in case I need them.
 
lostlandscapes said:
Like everyone else has said, I prefer the first. I'd brush in a little more contrast in the foreground and maybe knock the exposure down 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop or so in the sky with the graduated filter tool (and maybe even sneak in a tiny bit more saturation in the sky to pull out more of those pink/magenta hues. Definitely on the right path though. I think the more you get in touch with localized editing (versus global), the better you'll feel about your processing. It's fun stuff.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the approach I would take with the original image.
 
Here's another example of an original shot straight out of camera and a HDR version with a lot of work.

orig.jpg

This might be a little too much lipstick on the pig, but here it is:

extracrispy.jpg

Well, ummm, I did add a little feature in the bottom left corner. But other than that, it was the additional tonal range available with HDR that made this shot interesting.
 
Doesn't it really come down to what your eyes see, then getting the closest reproduction of that "mind picture".
Early and late light colors can be amazingly unreal. But we all want those amazing hues you dont get at midday. Especially since that's when we are out hiking and exploring.
That last picture may be a little overdone. But it's probably a lot closer to what you saw with your eyes than what the camera saw.
 
Messed around a little with adjustment brushes in LR basically just dodging and burning with the brightness slider..
JDG_5487-3.jpg
original
JDG_5487.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAA
You must log in or register to reply here.
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Jackson What does "car camping" mean, in your opinion? General Discussion 33

Similar threads

Back
Top