Dockers at work

RVW

RVW

Messages
428
Name
Ray
Edit My Images
Yes
Statue in Docklands

5012386046_622ec6f7ca_z.jpg
 
HDR/brushing is way over done for my tastes I'm afraid, but looking it as art, you've certainly achieved a "sketched" appearance. The colours just aren't realistic enough for me though, hence this hand drawn look
 
I don't like it.
But having said that I really really don't like the way the left crane is attatched to the left statue's book.
 
too heavy and overdone for me, , i looks more like a drawing than a photo
 
OK guys thanks for the comments. Will now put the BOOT on the other foot;)
Show me how you would make it acceptable in your eyes.
I have a very open mind on these subjects .

The original

5019866252_28c8b0a2b7_z.jpg
 
Here's my effort

5019866252_28c8b0a2b7_z.jpg


:LOL:

I mean, what is wrong with it as it is? The sky is overexposed and uninteresting but thats to do with the time of day you have shot it.
 
joescrivens said:
Here's my effort

5019866252_28c8b0a2b7_z.jpg


:LOL:

I mean, what is wrong with it as it is? The sky is overexposed and uninteresting but thats to do with the time of day you have shot it.
Click to expand...

That's it precisely uninteresting as is, hence the PS version.
I accept it does not suit everybody but I like HDR in most forms.Some can be OTT some you are hard pressed to notice.
Photography is an art form as much as anything else.
A pile of bricks in the Tate modern is classed as art by some, by others just a pile of bricks.
So I go back to my question How can it be improved? ;)
 
But I think the problems with the shot are to do with when you shot it and your composition -these two things are what need to happen to improve it, not doing over the top processing. The photo needs to be taken again at a different time from a different angle.

and I am a fan of HDR and have done lots of it.

Sometimes you can't polish a turd - just an expression, not saying your photo is turd, just that pp will only improve what is possible in the first place.
 
By going back and shooting at a different time of day?

Personally it's not a shot I'd spend much time on. I would probably have gone for closer shots, framing to avoid the obviously modern plinth, bringing the distant cranes into the backgrouns, maybe processing into b&w.. basically de-emphasising the modernity of the memorial to bring out the feel of the industry it's representing. If you crop off the top 1/4 and the plinth steps at the bottom you'll get the idea for what I would have gone for.

Could be a really nice location for a foggy evening or early morning.
 
Going back at shooting at a different time of day is not an option.
Have done a B&W and yes I like it but my original quest was to emphasise the statues.Admit there is possibly a bit too much glow/halo but I am happy with it.
Bw version on the suggested lines.

5019976577_804e6a9ae1_z.jpg
 
RVW said:
Interesting comment. Would you care to expand??
Click to expand...

erm overprocessing and halos - compare original to the HDR jobbie.........

HDR looks like computer generated image........(which I guess technically it is) and halos.... well there are halos
 
I think the b&w tighter crop is an improvement. What do you think about it?

I have a hard-drive of images where I've seen the shot I should have taken with the benefit of 20:20 hind-sight, and no option of a return visit.

To me, if it's a good HDR it shouldn't be obvious to someone that doesn't understand exposure that the image has been heavily processed. However there are a large number of people that go for the over-saturated tone-mapped look.. I think that's what's meant by giving HDR a bad name. It's a matter of taste.
 
I can see that perhaps a better photograph should have been achieved in the first place but apart from that then I obviously have no taste as I think the picture is cracker. I see it more as a poster or a wall hanging but think it would look great like that.Well done for making something smashing out of your shot!
 
The first one looks fine to me :)


If you like it stick with it
 
Alastair said:
I think the b&w tighter crop is an improvement. What do you think about it?

I have a hard-drive of images where I've seen the shot I should have taken with the benefit of 20:20 hind-sight, and no option of a return visit.

To me, if it's a good HDR it shouldn't be obvious to someone that doesn't understand exposure that the image has been heavily processed. However there are a large number of people that go for the over-saturated tone-mapped look.. I think that's what's meant by giving HDR a bad name. It's a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

Well improvement is a statement in personal tastes. Yes I do like the b&w version although it could do with a bit more work.

Surely if a HDR pic is not obvious in general terms then what is the point of doing it in the first place? You may as well make a good job of it in CS5 or whatever.

As for giving HDR a bad name I think that is a terse statement.
You could say that all the bad/indifferent/poorly processed pics that appear on different forums give photography a bad name.

Just because a particular style does not conform to a persons thinking,it does not make it bad. It just makes it different ;)
Just look at some of the so called art in art galleries. :bonk:

Freedom of choice and speech is a wonderful thing :)

We learn much from others as we do making mistakes.
 
Part of the problem is that the term HDR is applied to more than one technique..

You can do it with three or more (and usually seven or more) RAW exposures, combined with HDR software and tone-mapped, then exported to a better editting package to be finished. Done right it will be instantly recognisable that something has been done to someone that understands exposure, but to a person off the street it might just look like a very good photo. Call this HDR.

Others will include taking a single raw exposure, adjusting the exposure in post to get three pseudo-bracketed images, then combining and tone-mapping and editting as above. It won't capture the same dynamic range, but done well it can look realistic. Call this pseudo-HDR.

But the term is also applied to taking a single exposure and running it through tone-mapping software to get the "HDR look". Call this tone-mapping or the "HDR look".

What gets people wound up is that HDR does not have to have the HDR-look, and the HDR-look does not capture a high dynamic range. So when you do "HDR" with an image you will always get judged by people's ideas about what is and isn't HDR.


The above are only my opnions.. and I have those about art in galleries as well.. (y):shrug::thumbsdown:

.. and the great thing about opinions (as a good friend used to tell me) is that opinions are like a******es, everyone has one :LOL:
 
RVW said:
Interesting comment. Would you care to expand??
Click to expand...
Sure... the halos are extreme and in my opinion not complimentary to the photo. The grey sky also does not work for the image.

I think you have tried to produce something more dramatic from the wrong starting point. It looks like you have not taken multiple exposures and combined them, which would have enabled a higher quality result in both terms of definition in the statue, the cranes, the sky, the trees and prevented the halos.

Extreme processed HDR can look good... but just not in this case. Just my opinion and if you're happy with that is all that really counts.
 
Gordon Scott said:
Sure... the halos are extreme and in my opinion not complimentary to the photo. The grey sky also does not work for the image.

I think you have tried to produce something more dramatic from the wrong starting point. It looks like you have not taken multiple exposures and combined them, which would have enabled a higher quality result in both terms of definition in the statue, the cranes, the sky, the trees and prevented the halos.

Extreme processed HDR can look good... but just not in this case. Just my opinion and if you're happy with that is all that really counts.
Click to expand...

Fair comment.:) It was from one image although in fairness the sky was grey and would not have benefited from 3 or more exposures.
The main thing I was trying to do was produce a more dramatic result from what was a bland start. Probably that was the problem.
Thanks for your comments.
 
RVW said:
Fair comment.:) It was from one image although in fairness the sky was grey and would not have benefited from 3 or more exposures.
The main thing I was trying to do was produce a more dramatic result from what was a bland start. Probably that was the problem.
Thanks for your comments.
Click to expand...

OK... one point though, multiple image HDR can bring interest in overcast sky's that are quite bland as viewed at the time. This is a 9 exposure shot taken on an overcast day.

 
I really like it, small crop to remove the sky above the crane hook and its excellent, well done!
 
The only problem with this photo is that it's taken at the wrong point of time in the universe.

No interesting sky or weather and totally bland lighting. That's why it pretty much just looks like a snapshot of a sculpture.

All the PP in the world won't really reverse that.
 
I think this is probably an acceptable version of it.... don't think the HDR is though, and I normally quite like HDR.... if it's well done.

20a3nzb.jpg
 
Ray, if you like the effect, why ask for approval?

Just stick it in the publics face and take what comes.

BTW. I would love to see more of your stuff - so there is a vote of confidence if you need it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top