winter in Candiac Qc 5 Image HDR

Comments?

This Photoshop thing really just doesn't work very well.  It's bold to make things that look funny, you know, but how they're funny should be dictated by you, not by Photoshop.  Otherwise they look like everybody else's funny pictures, and that can't be good in the long run.

Oh yeah, "COMMITMENT" - I think you have to commit to your choice about the picture, decide to get the bottom right or the top right, and just do the best you can with the rest.  Show me one like that, if you have time.  best, j

Jamie: here is one without any changes where the bottom half looks close to reality. IMHO I did not think that a graduated ND filter would be appropriate.

The original certainly does not represent what I saw - it represents the technical limitations of most cameras with this level of dynamic range.

I like this shot, because it captured my attention. Very original and really not that far from reality. The snow needs a little tweaking  so that it's bright white and the trees on the far left need a little burning in, otherwise great job capturing this one.

Very nice composition.  Very fine work.  #7.  Best Regards,

I like this colourful version, it caught my attention. I would think you shoot in RAW to put some light and colours into the picture.

Sidsel

Tony... We don't get to see a lot of snow here, but to me this looks very natural. I also don't do HDR, but appreciate it when it's done well. A very appealing presentation... Mike

Well done Tony, it looks natural to me.

Tony,

  Breathtaking scene with amazing processing.  Thanks for sharing.  Take care, Patsy

Tony.. really great that you could restore the scene to its nature. Best regards

this picture has a very good visual impact.  Light- and colour- wise it's soft and warm.  the curves lead the eyes into the photo and also towards the sunset.  The sky looks very pleasing.  As to what Jamie K. wrote, if photography as art is about visual impact, then ALL congruent (as in positive) ways of manipulating the photos are great, if they achieve the envisioned (or at least pleasing) result.  I had a look at Jamie's photos and they are nothing special.  I coudn't see much vision in them.  In fact, Jamie could learn from you.  Cheers, Micheal

Many Thanks for all of your kind words.

Michael - I appreciate your feedback but also Jamie K's input. My last submission for rating "a rather red Tiger lily", Jamie had some minor issues with it but rated it a 6. Everyone else said it was a great shot, it was 'beautiful', exceptional clarity, an example of a great background, etc. That image started off well with sixes and sevens and fives but after rates as low as a '2', it slowly plunged to a 3.75 average. None of the raters publicly  specified why they did not like it. 

I guess the point I am making is that Jamie told me that he did not like the appearance - looked as if it was 'photoshopped'. It does not matter that I did not use photoshop for the HDR process, it had an appearance that he did not like. I can't change that but at least I know.

HDR has a rap for a certain appearance but I believe that it can be used effectively to get around technical limitations without the HDR-Look. The manufacturers are beginning to recognize the efficacy of HDR and already some cameras are being offered with built in HDR. 

Since this image represents fairly accurately what I saw, I don't consider it as art or artificial.  However, photography 'as art' is a topic where they will be no knock-down winners. While i try to represent a scene as i see it, I am not opposed to take liberties for visual impact (pixelbender, liquify filter, etc) but I usually identify that.  We accept Black and White conversions despite the fact that our eyes don't see the scene that way normally.  Other processes will either be scorned or embraced. 

 

All the very best for 2012

This is simply lovely. Congratulations.

My wife and I come back again to this photo.  We all like it since it looks very natural and attractive.  The whole scene is beautiful.  This is a common place, but you give it a lovely life.  Best regards,

the trouble for me is the haloes.  you will absolutely never in your entire life see haloes around dark objects in the real world, unless there are actually haloes there for some weird optical reason.  i realise that this looks like what you saw in the abstract, but in literal terms, you won't have seen all the halo artefacts.  for me, the haloes are a deal breaker because they reveal the strings attached the little model spaceships in a 1950's sci-fi film, metaphorically speaking.

the haloes are a result of the spatial filters used by the process you selected.  the filters might work better if they were larger, but photoshop sets how big they can be.  with the manual technique that i use, the biggest filter radius is 250 pixels, not small, but since it's measured in pixels instead of fractions of the whole image, the filter is effectively smaller for images with higher resolution.  it would be interesting to try downsizing the image to 1/4 of the original pixel resolution and then try again.  the haloes should calm down.

thanks for posting the unprocessed picture.  i see that the action is in the sky.  best, jamie

Tony you have produced a wonderful and beautiful image. I have seen HDR images with very visible  haloes but I am having a difficult time spotting them on this image as mentioned by J. Kraft. It must be my eyes and/or my monitor. Congratulations.

 I like this shot.  It caught my eye and made me stop to look closer.  It doesn't look unnatural, maybe enhanced, but not unnatural.  The whole idea of post processing is to make the image appealing, not to make it as "real" as possible.

Nor do I see the halos.  I'm not saying they aren't there.....I just don't see them on my monitor.  I've seen a sky like this, and it's totally believable to me.  Overall it's a beautiful scene, well-crafted.  Although it's really pleasing to they eye, if I had one comment it would be this:  considering how bright the sky is, it seems like the snow could be a bit brighter.   Granted....the sun is low in the sky, so maybe there was no light falling on the front part of the scene. 

Tony, I'm looking for halos as well, and I can't see any.  Aside from halos, another problem that I frequently see in HDR photos is a sky that is different when looking through the crown of a winter deciduous tree compared to the sky that is just above the crown.  I.e., HDR sometimes doesn't handle small enclosed spaces very well.  You might have one of those spaces just to the right of the conifer -- it looks particularly light.  However, that could also be natural.  Looking at the other areas where I might expect to see this HDR problem, I don't see it.

HDR is a valuable tool for photos like this in which the camera (sensor or film) can't accommodate the great range of light.  I think very few would argue that this is not an improvement over the single-exposure original and that it's not closer to what your eye saw.

The comment I had in mind when I first saw the photo and before I got involved in reading through all of the comments is that I think the light is a bit flat (i.e., too uniform), and it might benefit with a bit more contrast applied to the photo.  That might be done universally, or you might add contrast twice, once to the sky (including the trees) and again to the area below the sky.  Just a touch -- pretty subtle, especially below the sky. 

I have been busy and absent from PN. I appreciate all of the comments and will incorporate  some changes (brighter snow, etc) and also work on a B&W version which I should add here or as a new image. All the best,

I brightened up the overall image and added some tonal contrast (Shadow/Higlight/midrange contrast) so the granularity of the snow is better.

Thanks for the constructive comments.

This latest one is a winner. The big difference for me is the granular appearance of the snow and the fact that it is lighter.

Tony... Yep, even more better ;-)... Mike

I agree with Mike.  Nice work on this!