To HDR or Not

[Black Pearl]

I posted this HDR shot in another post and said I wasn't happy with it - I'm still not but can't quite put a finger on it.

 

 

It was suggested I post the original file - below - as you can see the contrast range was/is enormous so thats why at the time of taking I decided to shoot three images and HDR it.

 

 

I sat this morning and worked the single file in Lightroom to see if the detail could be pulled out and the contrast tamed.

I have to say LR is quite remarkable and I think I've finally got a shot I'm happy with:

 

 

Its not perfect but I don't want to fiddle any more as I've over 300 other images to chimp through......yes you are going to be "Laked" to death over the coming days.

[Leon]

I prefer no1 personally

[JohnP]

I prefer No3 because it looks more natural... like the human eyes would see it. No1 looks like a painting as do most HDR shots... at least to me anyway. IMO photography is about capturing the scene as our eyes see things... I realise not everyone is going to agree, but that doesn't bother me.

[Guest]

I prefer the Lightroom version, but you could do with the equivalent of a levels adjustment on the bridge and fg (excluding the river) to up the contrast and bring some highlights into the grass which is a bit flat compared to the rest.

Lightroom is a super tool.

[ChrisLumix]

I think the third one is just right - it looks more like a photo and less like an oil painting. There's a bit less contrast in the sky but there's no evidence of HDR. For what it's worth, the Shadows/Highlights sliders in iPhoto are pretty good too : they would have pulled similar detail out of the dark areas but probably with a marked amount of noise if it was a JPEG. But I would never have ended up with the #3 shot you got, which you could probably sell to a picture agency with no trouble at all!!

 

Yes, #3 is my clear favourite.   

[Black Pearl]

Lightroom is amazing - other software is available    - and I'm amazed at how much detail came out of the file.

Bill I could work on it more but the bridge was in heavy shade so I was concerned it would start to look fake again.

[NannyFerret]

No 1 for me too.

[Martyn]

I prefer #3. The darker shadow under the bridge gives a better sense of realism for me.

 

Keep them lakes coming BP, they're awesome!

[colinb]

I think both shots are excellent in their own right and show two ways to process and image in which a camera has had difficulty in covering the dynamic range.  

 

One to show the 'post processing is evil' believers

[Black Pearl]

That Colin is a very good point.

 

The middle shot isn't useable and nothing I could have done at the time of taking it would have produces a great shot. If I had still been using film (specifically large format sheet film) I could have exposed and developed the shot to maximise dynamic range then I could have 'mucked about' with the shot under the enlarger but would that be wrong? Is doing the same with Lightroom or Photoshop any worse? 

 

I don't have rigid rules. I will try to get a shot right at the time it is taken if that is possible. I will take a shot knowing it will need a certain 'process' added to it on the computer and I will "Photoshop" an image if I feel it is right to do so. 

Photography is all about the end result.

I believe that the way to that result isn't really important and any image presented to the public should be able to be: A. viewed in its own right and B. judged as a final result. 

 

i have to say that TIPF is very good at judging the final image and not the process - for that we should be very proud!