Stony Creek 2

[Mad Aussie]

This one another HDR but not using any software other than photoshop and it's hand done. By that I mean no filters or scripts etc. It's a composite of 4 layers at various exposures.

The result is a less dramatic image than if I used the usual HDR software like photomatix but the image is more realistic I think. Takes a lot longer though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3303/3430559749_328de28b53_o.jpg

Two more added to this post ... one another realistic HDR and then followed by the same image with a slight glamour blur applied but then selectively masked out.

Using the same technique as I described above for the 1st shot but a slightly different view.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/Mad-Aussie/09%20photographyca/_MG_5342-3.jpg

Same view with the subtle glamour blur added. The blur should only be evident mostly in the trees and grasses
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/Mad-Aussie/09%20photographyca/_MG_5342_2.jpg

[Marko]

This is a beautiful rendition MA and I think the extra time you took was worth it.

In general I like HDR to enhance the image not overtake it. This image is a PERFECT example imo. Well done!

[little laker]

I like the effect you captured.
I agree with you about most HDR's not looking all that realistic.

[MoinMoin]

Great shot - for me it looks wonderful natural. And the flowing water isn't looking too soft. I love it.

[AntZ]

Nice shot MA. You probably wouldn't know it was HDR unless you pointed it out.
Is most of the motion blur caused by the +EV frame, or do the multiple frames contribute noticeably?:confused:
One I was time trying to takes some motion blurred water shots, but not able to extend the shutter time enough. Later I had the idea of doing multiple frames(on a tripod but without changing EV) and merging them. I have never tried it though, but I figure you will see movement in the water, but everything else would stay crisp.

[Mad Aussie]

Thanks very much for those comments everyone.

This image is an example of how I've done my HDR work for years. The emphasis was nothing else but making it look real and showing as much detail as possible.

AntZ ... it would depend on how you processed the image and what speeds you had to play with in the first place. If you specifically took a well exposed shot of the water at the speed you wanted to obtain the movement or lack thereof you desired, then you could easilly post process it with exactly the look you want.
Basically you make sure you take enough shots of your scene to correctly expose everything you want to show in the final image. Then layer them up in PS and start masking. It's a process.

[jellotranz]

but the image is more realistic I think.

Looks great.. HDR is a neat thing and all but I am seeing way too much of it so fake looking and way overdone. Now if thats what you are going for thats great I guess, but it just seems like most people just take it too far. Love yours!!

[Mad Aussie]

Thanks Jello

I really like an overdone HDR IF the subject is right for it. And at this stage, I personally, do not consider myself experienced enough with that form of HDR to really know myself yet.
I've seen some very cool, overdone HDR of architecture that I'd love to emulate but usually landscapes seem to be better more realistic I think. I'll keep playing ... keep gathering opinions on both. I suspect I'll eventually figure out what things suit the overdone HDR effects and which don't.

[Mad Aussie]

I added two new images to the first post. Similar to the 1st but one with a different technique applied.

[JAS_Photo]

Those are great, M.A. :)

[Marko]

I like these new shots as well- but my eye still faves shot 1.

[Mad Aussie]

I like these new shots as well- but my eye still faves shot 1.
Do you think it's due to being able to see more detail? Or perhaps the water looks more inviting from that perspective? Something else?