Stream vs Stream

[Mad Aussie]

Still playing with these HDR images and trying different things.

Which of these two shots is more appealing??

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3475/3394094402_a5eb442921_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3394094780_f734d06dd7_o.jpg

[F8&Bthere]

On first look I like the lower one by a hair - they are very close of course, but there's a bit more detail or sharper detail in the background and reflections. The upper one looks a bit more ethereal, which is nice as well. Gorgeous shot(s)!

[Mad Aussie]

Thanks F8

[Gem]

I like the first better; I think the shadows add a bit more depth and gives it painted look. Although, on the right side, there's about a third of the picture where it looks considerably lighter than the rest (anything to the right of the tree trunk on the bank). It's not so noticeable in the second photo, but it really stuck out to me in the first. Lol, now I can't stop staring at it. :p

[Mad Aussie]

Yes the glow of the sun is more evident there because the bush thins out in the area you can see between those trunks.

I think I also like the first better. It's interesting to see who likes what version.

[kat]

I'm for #1 too!

[Barefoot]

They’re both very nice. It’s hard for me to say this without stepping on some toes, but I’m glad you didn’t feel the need to take it over the top in terms of tone mapping. The images have an enhanced quality but maintain a realistic look. That’s not to say that I can’t appreciate the work of some that use HDR for a more radical effect.

I wore it out myself there for a while. Just about everything I shot was exposed for HDR. I loved playing with "those little slider thingies" and abusing scenes that, in all honesty, could have been exposed very well with a single shot.

Anyway, I have no preference of the two. They’re both tastefully done images of a lovely scene. Hope that helps.

Just out of curiosity, could the scene have been properly exposed in a single frame?

[Mad Aussie]

Yeh ... I've seen some HDR that's overdone but it's worked beautifully ... I'm yet to figure that out or take suitable images.

For the majority of my photos I like to stick closer to reality ... with a touch of blur/glow where I think it might be a nice change.

No way I could taken that scene in one shot. The shadows were way too dark and the golden sections way too bright.

Thanks for those comments. I've got a long way to go yet I think.

[JAS_Photo]

I like them both as well. The first one is quite painterly in the style you would see in Victorian times by British artists of pastoral scenes.

[Marko]

Shot one wins for me. It has a more ethereal look as others have mentioned but it also has richer blacks.



...I think I also like the first better. It's interesting to see who likes what version.

Just a note...if you want a truer opinion, don't mention which you prefer until the end...as that can subconsciously influence a visitor's opinion. It's like voting on something in a room full of raised hands..results skewed everytime
(Sorry I took several sampling courses in my university days)

[Mad Aussie]

thanks again :)

[MoinMoin]

Hi Steve - I am preferring the first photo too. It has a more dreamy touch.
By the way: What programm are you using for HDR?

[Mad Aussie]

Hi Steve - I am preferring the first photo too. It has a more dreamy touch.
By the way: What programm are you using for HDR?
I used Photomatix for the HDR conversion and then for the first image I added a Glamour Blur and lastly some selective sharpening.

[kat]

I used Photomatix for the HDR conversion and then for the first image I added a Glamour Blur and lastly some selective sharpening.


What is a Glamour Blur? Never heard of that one before. Hmm..learning lots today!

[Mad Aussie]

What is a Glamour Blur? Never heard of that one before. Hmm..learning lots today!
An add on filter I found in one of the links someone posted here. Think it was in the processing section of the forums :confused: I find it makes a similar effect to what you see Dwayne using all the time.

[jlabel]

I like the first most. actually since you wanted the blurry effect (which worked well n this scene) it covered the unnatural look of the HDR

About glamour shots, some old time photographer used to take their shots using slightly blurred filters, hazy filters or crupled plastic bags, it helped to make blurry yet sharp pictures, hiding some features such as skin defects and giving a child-skin effect the the models.
You can easily post this effect by creating a layer, setting it to overlay (*not sure if this is the right blending mode) and filtering with some level of gaussian blur.

[Rinkdaddy]

I'am with F8&Bthere on this one. I like the second one. It looks a little more realistic to me. As mentioned, both pictures are great.

[Mad Aussie]

Thanks for those comments.

Yes ... back in the 'old' days we did use all sorts of things as filters. I used to steal my wife's stockings/panty hose and cut a small hole in them to create a 'soft filter' for portraits.
Cellophane for coloured filters was another trick.

[Chantelle]

I like the first one better I think, simply because it's got that dream look about it, looks like a image that someone would dream of. Both are very close, I had to look at both several times to figure out what was actually different.:goodvibes