Single shot HDR vs Single shot

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Single shot exposure, standard editing


DSC_0311 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr

dynamic range compression and detail/definition enhanced


DSC_0311 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr

B&W Version


DSC_0311 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr


Single shot with some shadow recovery. Note I cannot expose any higher, I am already clipping highlands on the sky.


DSC_0312 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr

Again, single shot, dynamic range compressed, definition enhanced.


DSC_0312 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr

B&W version


DSC_0312 by stephentaylor4@hotmail.com, on Flickr
 
#2 for me.
The slightly extra processing with its enhanced detail and contrast suits the rugged landscape without killing it.

#1 is just to flat and dull. Obviously to much tonal range for the camera to cope with on its own.
#3 is not to bad for a B&W conversion
#4 again to flat and loss of foreground detail
#5 & 6 starting to show signs of overcooked HDR.

I don't know the full extent of your processing that you have done here other than the brief details you have given but I would have maybe applied an ND grad in post production (in the absence of an ND filter on location).
The sky looks like it can be easily seperated from the foreground detail, tweaked slightly then blended back into the whole image.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can make a big difference selecting areas, without resorting to HDR

image.jpg
 
You can make a big difference selecting areas, without resorting to HDR

image.jpg

You'll be more skilled at this than me, I couldn't get the normal shot to jump like this one you have done. You've done a good job, considering what the start point was.(y)

The HDR still edges it for detail and recovery of shadows, but yours is more natural to look at.
 
With 4WD's edit, this works, although your first image isn't bad, and far better than any of your edits, with 5&6 quite painful to the eyes.
 
2nd pic for me too. More colour and detail even if slightly unnatural perhaps. 4wd's edit is very good and looks much more natural but I couldn't choose between the 2.
 
2nd pic for me too. More colour and detail even if slightly unnatural perhaps. 4wd's edit is very good and looks much more natural but I couldn't choose between the 2.

If I could have edited the route 4wd could have done, I'd have been inclined to do that, rather than adjust the dynamic range.

I liked the scene, and was dissappointed with any attempts to remove shadows etc so I did the tone mapping route. 4wd looks more natural, but I could see with my own eyes all the detail that the HDR one has.
 
4wd looks more natural, but I could see with my own eyes all the detail that the HDR one has.

You can have all the detail in the world, but it doesn't make for a good image, landscape images also have light and shadows, this is what gives meaning and mood to the composition, HDR processing bleaches any shadows, leaving images without a soul.
That's why HDR is never a process of choice for serious landscape photographers.
 
1 and 4 are exactly what you get in our wonderful summer and I like them both.
 
As above really, #2 has the definite edge, nice HDR work without going over the top
 
You can have all the detail in the world, but it doesn't make for a good image, landscape images also have light and shadows, this is what gives meaning and mood to the composition, HDR processing bleaches any shadows, leaving images without a soul.
That's why HDR is never a process of choice for serious landscape photographers.

There is still plenty of shadow in the 1st of the HDR image. A camera will never see as the human eye will and its not my favourite technique to use, but it can help recover an image to something more realistic.
 
The second one is the best shot and is better than the non hdr edit in this thread.
 
Back
Top