Newgrange HDR C&C

dan759

Hey Guys, Was at newgrange recently and attempted for the first time doing some HDR photography. Just thought i'd put it up here to get some C&C on it if anyone has any advice for the technique

I'm quite happy for my first try. Really didnt think it would work for me at all

Thanks in advance

Ballyman

PLease stop.

Heebie

I think it's over-sharpened just a tad. (like 8,000% when it could have been 18%)

Newgrange is a great subject though. I'd REALLY love it if they'd let you take photos inside there.. but they don't.

I got some cool ones inside the large mound at Knowth, though. =D

melekalikimaka

honestly, not too keen, what are you trying to achieve by this, processing aside, i dont get the composition??? the post pro, honestly hurts my eyes, it gives me a headache. hdr is very tricky to pull of, this is bordering on topaz adjust.

sorry for being a negative andy here, looks crooked or something too

dan759

Ballyman wrote: »

PLease stop.

Um, what?

dan759

melekalikimaka wrote: »

honestly, not too keen, what are you trying to achieve by this, processing aside, i dont get the composition??? the post pro, honestly hurts my eyes, it gives me a headache. hdr is very tricky to pull of, this is bordering on topaz adjust.

sorry for being a negative andy here, looks crooked or something too

As a photo i wasn't particularly trying to achieve anything. Just attempting some HDR for fun and to try it out. I know some people don't like the over processed look but I just went for what I liked for now

DaireQuinlan

dan759 wrote: »

As a photo i wasn't particularly trying to achieve anything. Just attempting some HDR for fun and to try it out. I know some people don't like the over processed look but I just went for what I liked for now

It's awful. Really really awful. Not in a subjective sort of "some people don't like the over processed look" but in a completely and absolutely objective way.

dan759

Okay Guess its back to the drawing board for me :pac:

Thanks for the constructive critiscism guys

gerk86

well it's a succesfully made HDR. All ranges are neutrally exposed.

Besides that it's just a novel effect that's better when used subtely. I think pete4130 has nice examples of HDR.

AnCatDubh

for hdr to work to a level that is 'acceptable' to what would appear to be a majority of veiws expressed around these parts previously, it needs to be very subtle. What you appear to have achieved is something at the extremes of hdr which I think is why the initial reaction is quite negative towards it. That being said, that is the majority of opinion which gets expressed around here - that doesn't mean it's right, just means it's what people think - therefore if you like it then that may be all that matters. For me, it doesn't work at all - it is too overdone imho.

ThOnda

My eyes hurt. I am sorry, but this is another example why I hate HDR techniques.

dan759

AnCatDubh wrote: »

if you like it then that may be all that matters

Could't agree more.

The only reason i put it up was to get C&C on the processing and hopefully some advice on what to do next time. I kind of expect a whole load of backlash when it comes to HDR to be honest, i've noticed it seems to have a stigma with the masses on here.

Glad to see some people can be constructive rather than just plain rude. Its clear when most people see "C&C" in a thread title they just look at the image and dont read the text that comes with it. Oh well :rolleyes:

melekalikimaka

dan759 wrote: »

Could't agree more.

The only reason i put it up was to get C&C on the processing and hopefully some advice on what to do next time. I kind of expect a whole load of backlash when it comes to HDR to be honest, i've noticed it seems to have a stigma with the masses on here.

Glad to see some people can be constructive rather than just plain rude. Its clear when most people see "C&C" in a thread title they just look at the image and dont read the text that comes with it. Oh well :rolleyes:

Some advice then on the processing... curb the sharpening, are you going for a natural hdr image or an unnatural digital art piece. Not being smart but I dont think the comments were rude, c and c means comment and critique, people are giving honest opinions. you said your self you werent trying to achieve anything photographically and wanted feedback on the hdr side and people gave opinions and also tips

ThOnda

... some people can be constructive rather than just plain rude. Its clear when most people see "C&C" in a thread title they just look at the image and dont read the text that comes with it...

OK then. C&C? Hit UNDO button quite a few times. This might be the closest I could comment on how the HDR was used.

DaireQuinlan

dan759 wrote: »

The only reason i put it up was to get C&C on the processing and hopefully some advice on what to do next time. I kind of expect a whole load of backlash when it comes to HDR to be honest, i've noticed it seems to have a stigma with the masses on here.

That WAS constructive criticism. But that's ok, obviously the 'masses' here just don't appreciate your artfully worked HDR :rolleyes:

melekalikimaka is the thing to say...

Looks like you just used the 'Ink' effect on paint.net.

You should try taking a different photograph, that would generally need HDR. I'm sure you can filter pix, flickr or some other sites and then use photos on their for ideas, and use that as a base to learn from?

Your photo above looks like you just randomly pointed the camera anywhere and said "that'll do!" and went ahead.



A little off topic, but...

melekalikimaka is the thing to say... wrote: »

c and c means comment and critique

I've always wondered what that stood for. I knew one of the C's was gonna be comment, but never figured it out properly.

melekalikimaka

Deleted User wrote: »

I've always wondered what that stood for. I knew one of the C's was gonna be comment, but never figured it out properly.

Command And Conquer was what i thought first time i saw it

dan759

Nah, I like it

From what i've seen of HDR online, I like the more digital art pieces. If your going to process something so much, might as well take it that bit further. Otherwise, i'd just try do it as an original photo. Some HDR images i've seen of New York and other citys almost look comic-book like, Thats what i'd like to do with it.

And i did just point and shoot for this one. As i've said already, it was just to figure out how to do it. Now the next attempt will be to do it with a better photo

melekalikimaka

dan759 wrote: »

Nah, I like it

From what i've seen of HDR online, I like the more digital art pieces. If your going to process something so much, might as well take it that bit further. Otherwise, i'd just try do it as an original photo. Some HDR images i've seen of New York and other citys almost look comic-book like, Thats what i'd like to do with it.

check out topaz adjust, right up your alley i thinks.

http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/#4

dont even need to do the hdr

dan759

melekalikimaka wrote: »

check out topaz adjust, right up your alley i thinks.

http://www.topazlabs.com/adjust/#4

dont even need to do the hdr

Thanks!

cazze

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That WAS constructive criticism. But that's ok, obviously the 'masses' here just don't appreciate your artfully worked HDR :rolleyes:

HDR is great when applied correctly ! unfortunately this is well off the mark !
sorry mate !

melekalikimaka

dan759 wrote: »

Thanks!

went through a brief phase of messing with it, its interesting, but i found the whole novelty wears off when you realise its basically saturation-max, sharpen-max

dan759

No problem, Just experimenting with stuff

dazftw

Honestly HDR is something iv'e never tried and never will. I don't think it should have any place in photography. Its just fake crap. That's just my opinion on it.

Ask actungbarry for some advice he seems to be good at the ole HDR's..... :rolleyes:

Martron

dazftw wrote: »

Honestly HDR is something iv'e never tried and never will. I don't think it should have any place in photography. Its just fake crap. That's just my opinion on it.

Ask actungbarry for some advice he seems to be good at the ole HDR's..... :rolleyes:

ha ha .............. fake crap...........acthung barry good at it.........ha ha


( not laughing at acthung barrys pics laughing at the composition of the post)

swingking

HDR can look good in some circumstances ; like dealing with a very high contast scene. Even then you still need to play around with the levels and curves to make it work.

I find the best HDR s are the ones with minimal saturation and a good level of detail in the hightlights and the shadows.

I do like the grunge effect the OP was trying to achieve and fully understand that he's not really going for a natural look. It's fake looking but he's done what HDR is used for. He's captured the detail. Perhaps a bit too much sharpening tho

magicbastarder

AnCatDubh wrote: »

for hdr to work to a level that is 'acceptable' to what would appear to be a majority of veiws expressed around these parts previously, it needs to be very subtle. What you appear to have achieved is something at the extremes of hdr which I think is why the initial reaction is quite negative towards it. That being said, that is the majority of opinion which gets expressed around here - that doesn't mean it's right, just means it's what people think - therefore if you like it then that may be all that matters. For me, it doesn't work at all - it is too overdone imho.

i'd hate to be a moderator. you have to be too nice.

magicbastarder

swingking wrote: »

I find the best HDR s are the ones with minimal saturation and a good level of detail in the hightlights and the shadows.

to sum up what a lot of people here think - if it looks like a HDR, you've failed, because it looks unnatural. i've probably seen HDRs i did like, but i didn't know they were HDRs. we probably have an inbuilt reaction to pics which look obviously unnatural.

joeKel73

It's photos like these that give HDR a bad name.

Why not post the original and let a few people show you a more restrained use of HDR?

stunt_penguin

This is not HDR. End of discussion.

Chorcai

Not the best result Dan, IMO less is more with HDR.

Didnt Barry (http://barryocarrollphotography.zenfolio.com/) do some HDR tutorials ?

magicbastarder

stunt_penguin wrote: »

This is not HDR. End of discussion.

why not?

dazftw

Martron wrote: »

ha ha .............. fake crap...........acthung barry good at it.........ha ha


( not laughing at acthung barrys pics laughing at the composition of the post)

Are you laughing cause I said one thing and then something totally opposite?

I was being honest about one thing and sarcastic about the other :rolleyes:

Martron

thats what i was laughing at. but i was not laughin at barry at the same time if you know what i mean

Fenster

It feels like the commentators on this thread channeled my spirit. Scary.

Fenster

Okay. On that note, I see high dynamic range composition and tone-mapping as just two tools out of many that a photographer can use. To just tone-map an image for the sake of tone-mapping it is pointless and runs the high risk of generating a regrettable eyesore.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

stunt_penguin wrote: »

This is not HDR. End of discussion.

why not?

What the ... now look what you've gone and done. Continued the discussion !

I'd actually broadly agree. Unfortunately the OP's image is what HDR has become known as to the masses of the photographically illiterate. HDR in its original sense in the digital camera world though was intended as a technique to merge into one image a dynamic range far outside of what could be captured by one shot. A classic example would be the inside of a church, with both backlit stained glass windows and details of the interior both visible. Or the HDR by Fenster in this thread here:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055794379
In which both the exterior and interior of the castle are both apparent, something that wouldn't have been possible with one shot. The second edited shot on that thread is a prime example of a use of HDR that is both necessary and good, it's otherwise impossible to make the shot, and it's sufficiently understated that it doesn't scream OVER-PROCESSED at you.

Visuelle

As a first attempt I personally think the pp is way too much but keep trying and you will learn how much pp is needed.

Thecageyone

Ease up on the sliders, it's well over processed. I did a few like this when I first attempted HDR, I took the criticism on board and my next attempts were much better [I like to think]

This is HDR:



Just maybe a tad over processed but people seem to like it, and this:



Is a little more subtle, if you can call any HDR process subtle. But you get the idea, it doesn't look like the sliders have been all pushed to 100.

I'd say just ease up on the effects, look for cleaner visuals rather than noisey and unnatural.

I shot newgrange myself, got some nice silhouettes of the trees there as we were leaving, sun was just going down.

sprinkles

Wow. I actually thought the photography forum was above the levels set by the likes of After Hours etc. Seems it's not always the case.

I may be wrong but I thought the point of posting pictures for C&C was to find out what went right or more importantly what went wrong with a photo or set of photos and get some feedback on how to improve the technique/skills attempted. I realise HDR is in the marmite category of photography but there's no need for some of the posts here, some of which I would consider rude. If I was new to this forum it would put me off posting.

2 of the more insightful posts:

Ballyman wrote: »

PLease stop.

stunt_penguin wrote: »

This is not HDR. End of discussion.

Seriously, if you have nothing constructive to say to help the OP or others that are interested in the topic then why say anything at all?

Anyway here's my 2c's; I agree with most that the HDR is way over done. I've tried HDR a few times and tbh I've gotten worse results than that - it's tricky to get right. As already mentioned check out actungbarry's website - he has some good examples of HDR (imo) and some very good tutorials. You should maybe have another go but tone it down a bit and please post up your results.

The main part I don't like about the photo isn't the PP - it's just an uninteresting photo and one that I can't see the merit in putting it through the HDR process. What were you trying to convey in the photo? Was the main focus the other photographer?

Out of interest was it 1 RAW file or multiple exposures? I'd be interested to see the original(s)

dan759

It was just three photos of -1, 0, +1. As i've said, i wasn't doing anything with the photo itself, just trying out the process of HDR for the first time. I was in newgrange the day after I read the process so as i was walking around doing my assignment i just thought of doing the 3 exposure of the Mound itself.

Once again, Not looking for C&C on the image, I know its Sh*%, was just testing out a technique i had heard of but never tried. And to be honest, i couldnt give a toss if most people don't like HDR, If your not interested in HDR, don't C&C on it

Most people on here don't like Jackie Nickersons work yet shes more successful than most :rolleyes: To each their own.

And Chorcai thanks for the link. Love those HDR images!

melekalikimaka

dan759 wrote: »

Most people on here don't like Jackie Nickersons work yet shes more successful than most :rolleyes: To each their own.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055510306

dan759

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055772838