I like your version. My intent is always to make the scene look like I
remember it. Maybe my memory adds some drama based on how happy I was and
how much I love to travel ;-)
Tina
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 9:54 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
> > Here is the original middle exposure. As to what is wrong with the
> > original exposure, the sun was bright and the shadows were harsh. I
> think
> > in cases of extremes in exposure, an image which combines the best of the
> > shadows and the best of the highlights beats one that is in the middle:
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/149421907
>
> I agree. I'm just not convinced that HDR is necessary to do that. The
> thing with high DR digital is that one needs to
> expose for the highlights, to avoid clipping. This, of necessity, pushes
> the mid tones down, and looks blah out of the
> camera, like this.
>
> However, all the data needed is still there, it just needs to be put back
> to rights. Even using this small, 8 bit file,
> there is plenty of data to make a balanced looking scene.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Manley/Carmona_Spain.htm>
>
> With this particular image, with the church facade in shadow, a fully
> balanced form still leaves it very dark. My choice
> was to bring it up to make the overall image look good. Clearly, it's not
> realistic, unless the building the camera is
> on has a bright white or silver wall that is reflecting light on the
> church. ;-)
>
> I think it is still much more realistic looking than either of the HDR
> images. Imagine what could be done with the Raw file!
>
> NOTE: The first alteration shows what gentle re-sharpening does for visual
> sharpness.
>
> > HDR is not much different from exposing for the shadows and developing
> for
> > the highlights!!
>
> Well, I never did that. It seems to me, though, that the sort of HDR you
> have done goes much farther. Both are artistic
> interpretations, rather than just bringing "an image which combines the
> best of the shadows and the best of the
> highlights [and] beats one that is in the middle ".
>
> They move the tone curve around and change colors far beyond anything that
> might seem natural. Blue walls? Sepia walls?
> One may like them or not, but they aren't straight.
>
> I have seen HDR done subtly to accomplish what you suggest. OTOH, I don't
> see why it is necessary in any but more
> extreme cases than this. At base ISO, most contemporary higher end cameras
> have enough DR to do the job in one exposure.
>
> The primary use of HDR that I've seen is to make images look unnatural in
> an interesting, hopefully appealing way. That
> appears to me to be what you have done. Why not just call it what it is?
>
> BTW, I like the PhotoMatix version the better of the two.
>
> D.R. Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|