"Hand done" HDR

[CWSkopec]

So, I've found Photoshop's automated HDR merging to be pretty flat and uninteresting and my bank account tells me I can't play with Photomatix or any of the other stand alone software for HDR, but I really wanted to get it to work!!

Here's my attempt, "hand done" in Photoshop with layers, blending modes and masking... But please, don't constrain your whips to just the technique, whip the whole thing!! :thumb
(even the watermark is new after weeks of trying to come up with something simple yet effective, so if you fancy, whip that too!! :D )

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2666534471_8b29b1f0ea_b.jpg

Thanks for looking!! And as always, thanks in advance for the comments/critiques!!! :D

[Argos]

Wow -- I can't speak for anybody else, but I like it! Crisp, lots of visual interest, but doesn't have that over-the-top / artificial look that some HDRs have.

[CWSkopec]

Wow -- I can't speak for anybody else, but I like it! Crisp, lots of visual interest, but doesn't have that over-the-top / artificial look that some HDRs have.

Thanks Argos!! :D

I'm not a real big fan of the over-the-top/articial look of most HDRs but when they're done subtly to be closer to what we actually see, I think they're awesome!!

Glad you like it!! :thumb

[davev]

It looks great.

I think I might have brought the one hot spot down a little, and in the same building, and it almost looks like a window is missing in the middle of it. I'd clone that out also.

Did you do this with one exposure ( run through camera raw multiple times )
or is it multiple exposures with the camera?

[CWSkopec]

It looks great.

I think I might have brought the one hot spot down a little, and in the same building, and it almost looks like a window is missing in the middle of it. I'd clone that out also.

Did you do this with one exposure ( run through camera raw multiple times )
or is it multiple exposures with the camera?

Hmmm... I never even noticed that missing window... now I can't not-see it... Thanks for pointing that out... I'll get rid of it soon as I can get back to my home computer!! :thumb

This was done with one exposure run through camera raw 3 times for the highlights, shadows and a more balanced one for mid tones that was the "base" layer that the others were blended into. I took multiple exposures while I was down there, but this one had the best range in it, so I just went with it... plus it was easier to layer and not worry about exact positioning of each layer since the edges matched up...

Thanks for looking! :D

[Oakley]

Hey CWS.

My thoughts:

My first thought was "too dark". My second thought was why is it too dark. So I started to look around and I didn't see much. Boats, water, building - but what's the story? Why the shot? I think the composition needs some work - everything is too central and there is nothing leading my eyes to what you want me to see...which is the building on the left? Or is it the building on the right?

What do I like? I like the gold reflection of the building on the left in the water. I really like your watermark. I really like it. My only though on the watermark is - won't someone just crop out that corner if they want the photo? So --- if it's soley for branding - great. If it's for protection, I don't think it'll do too much for ya.

Thanks for posting. I look forward to more. And good luck with the HDR...it's somethign I am keen on learning about too!

Ryan

[Art Scott]

just say I agree wit hthe other posters.....except your copyright isn't truly a copyright with out.........© as the first part of the copyright......and then you do not need the word copyright.....................are you saving a file without the copyright that you have shown us...for images that you may want to sell have a file that has your handwritten siggy in it with the year shot just as if you signed it in gold or silver (and NO copyright sysmbol.....I place mine approx 1" to 1 1/2" up from botom and ~about the same from the right side....that way it shows even if client decides to mat it .

[CWSkopec]

Hey CWS.

My thoughts:

My first thought was "too dark". My second thought was why is it too dark. So I started to look around and I didn't see much. Boats, water, building - but what's the story? Why the shot? I think the composition needs some work - everything is too central and there is nothing leading my eyes to what you want me to see...which is the building on the left? Or is it the building on the right?

Thanks for bringing that up, Ryan.
The central composition was a concern of mine when judging this shot, but I didn't want to "seed" the thought by starting off with it. Composition is an area that I've got a lot of learning yet to do but, since you ask, I think what I was drawn to with this image was indeed the buiding on the right and it's reflection... but without the other elements it appeared to be somewhat lost in space to me, just kind of floating there and not in a beneficial way. My hope was the perspective would draw your eye towards the larger building on the right. But not that I look at it, the left building being more lit up is probably causing a good amount of the conflict, yeah?


What do I like? I like the gold reflection of the building on the left in the water. I really like your watermark. I really like it. My only though on the watermark is - won't someone just crop out that corner if they want the photo? So --- if it's soley for branding - great. If it's for protection, I don't think it'll do too much for ya.

I agree, the highlights did get a nice golden shimmer there!! :D
The watermark is more for branding purposes at the moment... plus I like to give myself little projects and was seeing everyone else's watermarks, so that became my mission! And I don't know that anyone will be attempting to steal my images just yet, so I've got some time to work on something a little more effective!! :thumb



Thanks for posting. I look forward to more. And good luck with the HDR...it's somethign I am keen on learning about too!

Ryan
Thanks for the comments!!
I've seen some amazing HDR work here on Dgrin and across the web so hopefully one day I'll get there... :wink

[CWSkopec]

just say I agree wit hthe other posters.....except your copyright isn't truly a copyright with out.........© as the first part of the copyright......and then you do not need the word copyright.....................are you saving a file without the copyright that you have shown us...for images that you may want to sell have a file that has your handwritten siggy in it with the year shot just as if you signed it in gold or silver (and NO copyright sysmbol.....I place mine approx 1" to 1 1/2" up from botom and ~about the same from the right side....that way it shows even if client decides to mat it .

Thanks for the suggestions, Art!
My goal is to one day be selling my photos, so I definitely keep your suggestions in mind, I'm just not there yet, I think... always something new to learn right? :D

As for the copyright... I was under the impression that the... uh-oh... don't know the html... you know, the "c" in the circle symbol was just a sort of shorthand for those that didn't want to spell out copyright and that either/or was good and both of course was redundant... I'm new to having to worry about it though so I will definitely check it out (luckily I work for a small publishing company and though I don't know the answer for sure, the "higher-ups" will). And please, don't take that to mean that I don't trust you, I just like to research when I can (plus I really like the way it looks right now!! :D)

[geospatial_junkie]

Sorry, I'm a little confused but is this an HDR or an exposure blend?:D :dunno Both are very similar with the exception that the creation of an actual HDR image produces a more artsy look and increased luminosity with the addition of detailed enhancement. I'm just not seeing much dynamic range here and not many details in the shadows.

As for the shot itself, I like it! It looks like something I would see in a travel magazine. I do find it a little dark as well and its too bad you've got that big shadow on the glass building, but there is a quiet serenity to this photo. You chose a good vantage point to take the photo from and it paid off with a good composition.:thumb

[CWSkopec]

Sorry, I'm a little confused but is this an HDR or an exposure blend?:D :dunno Both are very similar with the exception that the creation of an actual HDR image produces a more artsy look and increased luminosity with the addition of detailed enhancement. I'm just not seeing much dynamic range here and not many details in the shadows.

As for the shot itself, I like it! It looks like something I would see in a travel magazine. I do find it a little dark as well and its too bad you've got that big shadow on the glass building, but there is a quiet serenity to this photo. You chose a good vantage point to take the photo from and it paid off with a good composition.:thumb

Well OK, I made an exposure blend with the hopes of capturing the qualities of an HDR because I don't like the automated way Photoshop handles it... as many tutorials as I've followed I can't seem to match so I decided to try it my own way to see the results... :D When compared to the original it has more range, but compared to a true HDR it might not be there yet!! More tweaking to follow when I've got the chance :thumb

As for the shadow, if I remember correctly, that's the reflection of the oposite tower... I'll tinker around in the file to see if I can minimize that some...

Thanks for looking, and thanks for the compliments!! :D

[KennyS]

Personally, I like the reflection in and the exposure of the building. On the other hand, everything else seems a bit underexposed and a tad grainy. A true HDR would have negated that noise presumably. You could also stand to use a bit of CCW rotation. Overall, I like it. Nice frame.

[geospatial_junkie]

True HDR does not negate noise, in fact it increases due to the stacking nature of the software. Also using the detail enhancer in HDR increases noise by quite a bit as you are bringout out details in shadows. Try it out and you'll see.:D

This is the beauty of taking a good photo on its own, you'll have much more ability to experiment with it (as is the case here)!

This is a good article:
Outbackphoto (http://www.outbackphoto.com/CONTENT_2007_01/section_hdr_and_tonemapping/20080119_PM30_Merging/index.html/)

You may also want to check Cambridge In Colour's site for good info:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

[CWSkopec]

Personally, I like the reflection in and the exposure of the building. On the other hand, everything else seems a bit underexposed and a tad grainy. A true HDR would have negated that noise presumably. You could also stand to use a bit of CCW rotation. Overall, I like it. Nice frame.

Thanks Kenny!

[CWSkopec]

True HDR does not negate noise, in fact it increases due to the stacking nature of the software. Also using the detail enhancer in HDR increases noise by quite a bit as you are bringout out details in shadows. Try it out and you'll see.:D

This is the beauty of taking a good photo on its own, you'll have much more ability to experiment with it (as is the case here)!

This is a good article:
http://Cartographica.smugmug.com/photos/332365812_MnBsh-X3.jpg

You may also want to check Cambridge In Colour's site for good info:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/

Thanks for the link, Geospatial!!!

Very nice portrait and the Cambridge in Colour site looks like it'll keep me occupied for quite some time!! :D

[geospatial_junkie]

Ooops the first one was the wrong link, but I've modified it in the above post!:huh The portrait isn't mine either, I was just posting a different version for someone of the forum so I can't take credit for it.

[CWSkopec]

Ooops the first one was the wrong link, but I've modified it in the above post!:huh The portrait isn't mine either, I was just posting a different version for someone of the forum so I can't take credit for it.

Thanks for the references!! Both look like they'll take up a good amount of my free time this weekend!! :thumb

[AFBlue]

As for the copyright... I was under the impression that the... uh-oh... don't know the html... you know, the "c" in the circle symbol was just a sort of shorthand for those that didn't want to spell out copyright and that either/or was good and both of course was redundant...

You're right. US copyright reads:

(b) Form of Notice.— If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

[CWSkopec]

You're right. US copyright reads:

(b) Form of Notice.— If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright”, or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying text matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful articles; and
(3) the name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Thank you, AFBlue!!

I did ask my boss, but forgot to get around to answering the question here. So I appreciate you reminding me!! :thumb

There was also another post under the Mind Your Business forum that brought up the question of Copyrights not too long ago and one of the links I followed was to an article stating that under the most recent revision it's not even truly necessary to have a copyright notice on the work in question (although it could afford you greater compensation in a court case) as everything now has an implied copyright owned by the original author of said work.

Not that that should discourage anyone from putting a notice on their photos, or that it should be taken as the law (I believe it to be a summary of the law, but I'm not going to read through the actual law to prove it for myself) I just thought it was interesting...

[8zil]

I like it a lot, vrey natural, not overdone at all... some might argue that the tonal range is not really HDR but that is up to the one that makes it.... I like it

[CWSkopec]

I like it a lot, vrey natural, not overdone at all... some might argue that the tonal range is not really HDR but that is up to the one that makes it.... I like it

Thanks 8zil!!

I was going for a more realistic look, so it's good to know I hit my goal!:D

[dlplumer]

I really like all the technical aspects of the photo as well as the PP HDR work you did :clap The content itself is OK, but doesn't grab me.

[CWSkopec]

I really like all the technical aspects of the photo as well as the PP HDR work you did :clap The content itself is OK, but doesn't grab me.

Thanks Dan!!

The more I've looked at it, the less I like the composition, but the more I've liked the work I did to it!!

Now I just have to find a better subject and try again!! :thumb