Across the Street

Al,  This reminds me of a Fauvist painting.  It's the shadows and light that do the dancing to generate a kind of surreal image.  Nice composition, most artistic.    Best Regards.  Larry

Al, I've looked through your portfolio many times and I'm a big admirer of your work.  That said...I'm not a fan of this picture. Sorry! I'm assuming it's an HDR image (?)  To me, it's cartoonish...a characteristic that I just can't seem to appreciate no matter how hard I try.  I fully realize I'm offering nothing more than an opion.  Others may love it...

I have the same opinion as that of John.  The light seems unnaturally flat, as if the shadows and the sun-lit areas are not sufficiently separated in terms of the amount of light they are receiving.  That's often found in HDR images, and while some may like it simply because it's "different," to my eye it looks strange and unnatural, and the term "cartoonish" is often used to describe the look.  But again, this is just another opinion.

Thanks guys for you honesty. It was processed with Photomatix and I was a little concerned about the final results. There are small parts that I like. I really appreciate you guys taking the time telling what you think; I guess I'll leave the HDR to those that can make it work.

Al

Al, Though I'm admittedly not a fan of this type of HDR photos, I have seen some in b&w that were really quite good. I wish I could recall whose photos they were!  I really know little about the process (well, I do...I just haven't looked at lots of HDR shots)...so I don't know if HDR works better in b & w than with color shots...or if it was just the skill of the photographer whose work I viewed.  I think I'll do some exploring myself!  Thanks for not taking offense to our comments!  Regards,  John

HDR is a controversial technique.  Some folks, with the right subject, really like the extreme use of HDR.  In fact, I have a friend here in town who took an HDR photo of the downtown area using the "exaggerated" HDR method, and his photo ended up on the cover of the chamber of commerce guide.  Others use HDR in a way that a viewer can't even tell HDR was used, although if one looks at the image one would realize it would be impossible with just a single click of the shutter.  The best example of "natural" HDR that I've seen is by Dirk Juergensen here on PN.  Some of his work really does overcome the limited range of light that a sensor can record in one shot, and yet he usually does it in a way that the processing is impossible to detect.  I've tried Photomatrix with limited success, and I'm currently trying Nik's new HDR software.

BTW, HDR technique aside, you really do have a nice rural scene here.  It has a somewhat older feel to it, due in part to the gap in the fences, both of which have been around for a few years.  The most prominent tree has an appealing form, and it's nicely placed in the frame.  One gets the sense of this spot being used as a shortcut by kids in the area.

I was ready at one point to give up on HDR but I have not and since I acquired Photoshop CS5 I have moved on from photomatix 3 which at one point was the industry standard for HDR. I am no expert on HDR but I have been getting some good results lately.

Here is an example of one that I am satisfied with Natural HDR Image   and here is the other one that is too flat and the only difference is in the processing HDR image.

Perhaps it is because I am not an expert with HDR, I find that almost all of the time, I need to perform additional editing on the output from HDR to get it to look 'natural'.

The other thing to consider is when to use HDR.  I shoot in RAW format all of the time and with my RAW software, I can usually rectify 1.5 to 2 stops of under or over exposure. I f the dynamic range exceeds these boudaries, I will try to use a GND filter to constrain the dynamic range and if that does not work, then I will capture at least 3 images 1 stop apart. I would prefer my auto-bracket to have two stops apart but it does not.

I have seen scenery like this and i am sure that i would have paused and taken a shot or two. I really like the 'spotty' light and mostly in the foreground. To be truthful, it is only what is in the foreground that holds my attention - the blue flowers, the lines of the wooden fence and the reddish wall. It is probably these elements on which i would study and end up taking an image or two. If possible i might have returned during the magic hours of sunrise and/or sunset to see if the light would turn an "OK" image into something more dramatic.

I have done some quick additional processing (levels and unsaturate) but it could probably need some more processing.

Rating: geez  - they have been tough with this one currently at 3.9 avg. That means lots of threes and fours. I respect and appreciate both John and Stephen laying it out as to why they don't like the scene and i prefer that any day to a 'anon 3 or 4" without comment.

I will rate this a '5'.

Hope you found this comment helpful.

attachment

Tony, I don't want to hijack Al's image, but hopefully Al will benefit, as did I, from your discussion about HDR.  The examples you provided were very illustrative of the technique, both good and bad.  The "natural" HDR of the interior of the church was quite rich and had depth.  The "unnatural" HDR of that same church had very flat light, something that I've seen too often when one is attempting HDR processing.  I think Al's original has pretty flat lighting, and I think your edits are a bit too dark for my tastes.  Still, you made some excellent points.

IMO, HDR is one of the great promises of digital photography, but I also think it's quite difficult to realize those promises.  Most of the software is not intuitive, there are many inputs that have a synergistic effect, and mastering the method is not easy.

I have been using HDR for quite a while. Usually I use blending and layers to get the desired results. There are several shots on here that I have done so:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7022760

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8955793

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10160592

I do agree that the main interest is in the foreground. I really appreciate all the comments.

Yes, you have been using it for quite a while; those are quite nice.  It's just hard to know where a person is or where that person is coming from based on a single photo.  This particular photo is quite different from the three you provided links to.  A photographer's intentions are not always known to the viewer.  I made a guess, and I think I was wrong.

The 3 examples of the HDR are very good and I could not tell that it was HDR.

That's the point I was trying to make.  Al clearly knows his way around HDR, so I can only conclude that the photo "Across the Street" was made to look as an HDR photo with relatively flat lighting.  That's a look that some folks intentionally try to achieve.  So without knowing Al's intentions, I'll comment that the lighting is flat, but with knowing Al's intentions I'll comment that Al succeeded admirably and perhaps aim my comments at other aspects of the photo (such as composition).  As I've said before (largely in jest, but with a hint of truth), it's tough being an armchair photographer like me, simply because viewers usually don't know where a photographer is coming from or where he/she is wanting to go with a particular photo.

So thanks guys for the discussion. I guess one easy solution would be to crop it and concentrate on the foreground, fence and flowers. IMO the crops that I have experimented with look better than the posted photo.

Anyway thanks for the input, it's how I get better.

Al