little bit of HDR

I tried to brighten this up by using Photomatix. I deliberately stay away from very over saturated HDR scenes, as they seem to be overdone in many cases. Thoughts? Thanks in advance!

The original image for comparison:

The greens look a bit overcooked and the sky looks muddy (often happens with photomatix). There's really no need to use an HDR program here, the effect you are after is easily achieved during RAW conversion adjusting highlights and shadows:

The greens look a bit overcooked and the sky looks muddy (often happens with photomatix). There's really no need to use an HDR program here, the effect you are after is easily achieved during RAW conversion adjusting highlights and shadows:

[ATTACH=full]1364211[/ATTACH]

Very nice thank you!

HDR is not natural looking. At least with most shots I've seen. Why do you want to see so many details in the shadows? Just because you can do it technically, doesn't mean aesthetically it looks good. The eye is drawn to lighter parts. No one really cares about seeing in shadows. Contrast adds interest aesthetically. Flattening an image is boring and our brain doesn't see that way. Dieter's comments are right.

I'd say: If you have to ask, you overdid it. (as Dieter demonstrated).

Don't know if it's my eyes, my screen, the way it's processed, some combination, etc. But except for the tree on the right, something looks off from the barred window back in both the top image, and Dieters example. Not quite as bad in Dieters example as in the top image, but it's still there.

Don't know if it's my eyes, my screen, the way it's processed, some combination, etc. But except for the tree on the right, something looks off from the barred window back in both the top image, and Dieters example. Not quite as bad in Dieters example as in the top image, but it's still there.

A golden opportunity for you and us! Please carefully describe what you think is off. That will force you to look carefully and articulate what the problem is that you see and will give us some clue as to what you may be referring to so we can address it.

A golden opportunity for you and us! Please carefully describe what you think is off. That will force you to look carefully and articulate what the problem is that you see and will give us some clue as to what you may be referring to so we can address it.

Ok. Not quite sure if it's a brightness problem, a contrast problem, some combination of the two, or maybe a saturation\lightness problem. Looking more closely, it actually starts at the lamp rather than the barred window, and as indicated in my earlier post, not as apparent in Dieters version. It's most apparent in the stonework on the buildings. Starting at the lamp and going back. It looks like different shades of the same color. As if the part of the image from the left edge to the lamp is under a nice clear bright sky and from the lamp back is under a dull overcast one. I don't know how else to describe it. It's not a gradual shift either (or at least doesn't look like one).

Ok. Not quite sure if it's a brightness problem, a contrast problem, some combination of the two, or maybe a saturation\lightness problem. Looking more closely, it actually starts at the lamp rather than the barred window, and as indicated in my earlier post, not as apparent in Dieters version. It's most apparent in the stonework on the buildings. Starting at the lamp and going back. It looks like different shades of the same color. As if the part of the image from the left edge to the lamp is under a nice clear bright sky and from the lamp back is under a dull overcast one. I don't know how else to describe it. It's not a gradual shift either (or at least doesn't look like one).

Thanks for giving it your best shot. It's a clear description, but I'm not seeing what you're describing. Maybe someone else can better address it.

Izzy, what you are seeing may just be the varied staining on the stone walls. It could occur naturally from tree shading, leaving dampness in the shaded areas and bleaching from more sun exposure. Starting with the obvious common stain bleed at the light.

Thank you !

HDR is not natural looking. At least with most shots I've seen. Why do you want to see so many details in the shadows? Just because you can do it technically, doesn't mean aesthetically it looks good. The eye is drawn to lighter parts. No one really cares about seeing in shadows. Contrast adds interest aesthetically. Flattening an image is boring and our brain doesn't see that way. Dieter's comments are right.

 

With all due respect, I disagree with this. In my view, our visual system has a higher dynamic range than digital cameras. You can find many pages on the internet trying to measure the dynamic ranges but a simple experiment is probably in this case more convincing than raw numbers that are measured with different variables. Go to a brightly lit scene with deep shadows and brightly lit areas. If you glance around the scene you can easily make out details in the shadows as well as the bright areas. Now take a picture of that scene and try to reproduce what you can see. Repeat that using HDR. I think the HDR output will mimic the visual experience more closely. In fact, HDR doesn't even do as good a job but it's closer to the visual experience, IMHO.

Human eyesight is not static. The iris opens and closes the pupil fluidly in real time. the fovea (for sharp central vision) is constantly shifting focus as you scan a scene. the brain makes live adjustments for the differences in milleseconds. A still camera is a very different beast, set it and it is a static interpretation ... it captures the entire framed scene equally. Stare at a deep shadow with a bright influence within your central vision and the shadow details will be lessened. Without the brightness the shadow details are much richer. Edited December 15, 2020 by inoneeye

HDR, in my opinion, has to be done with a very light touch. I don't really like it otherwise, in fact I'm not really a fan of "effects" in photography- although with all the digital capabilities, the potential for use of effects is vast- as can be seen nearly anywhere one looks. I'm no luddite, however. I understand where people are coming from in their digital efforts. Not my thing but I get it. With that I'll agree with others here who have said this seems a bit overcooked. I like the photo itself, but I don't see any real need to boost everything so heavily. The photo stands pretty well as presented in its original state, and as Mr Schaefer demonstrated, it's possible to boost certain levels discreetly to generally brighten it up without going all HDR on it.

With all due respect, I disagree with this. In my view, our visual system has a higher dynamic range than digital cameras. You can find many pages on the internet trying to measure the dynamic ranges but a simple experiment is probably in this case more convincing than raw numbers that are measured with different variables. Go to a brightly lit scene with deep shadows and brightly lit areas. If you glance around the scene you can easily make out details in the shadows as well as the bright areas. Now take a picture of that scene and try to reproduce what you can see. Repeat that using HDR. I think the HDR output will mimic the visual experience more closely. In fact, HDR doesn't even do as good a job but it's closer to the visual experience, IMHO.

Our brains don't "see" or interpret visually like a camera. But if you like HDR aesthetically, that's fine. Everyone has different tastes.

I like what you've achieved with Photomatix! The 2nd image certainly looks to me lot brighter, fresher and more attractive than the (muddier) 1st! I also like that you've used a 'subdued' HDR. I've seen some HDR examples which (just to me, personally) look horrific.

 

Because you posted the two versions (and thank you for this!), it's so easy to point out that 'this looks ...' compared to the original'.

 

I agree with others others that Photomatix has made some (but not all) the 'greens' stand out more in saturation and brightness than they might appear naturally I don't know know what other PP software you use, but a simple remedy would be just to reduce the saturation and lightness of the 'greens'

I agree that the HDR image looks unnatural, and that's not limited to the tree. The stonework in the foreground is inconsistent with the lighting of the scene--it's too bright and looks like it's artificially illuminated by a warmer light.

 

There is no reason to use HDR in this image. HDR, or an alternative like exposure fusion or manual blending of bracketed images, is needed when the dynamic range exceeds what the sensor can handle. A look at the histogram of your original image shows that this is not the case. When it's not the case, you can make adjustments without HDR, and you can avoid the distorted colors that the tone mapping in HDR software often produces. For example, it's easy to brighten the image, bring out details in the shadows if you want, boost contrast (with or without an increase in saturation), tweak vibrance, etc. However, getting the image to where you want can take a lot of practice.