When is HDR merge to much?

28lbe

28lbe

Messages
18
Name
will
Edit My Images
Yes
Recently I spent a weekend in the gorgeous Yorkshire hills and got some of the best shots of my career...

I took this 15 exposure image of a beautiful train track in the summer sun...

its really made me think "when is HDR merge to much"?

is this image to much... or is there a bigger boundary?

heres the image, and i don't know if

a) theres to much HDR

b) its a nice angle

opinions please!

deit coke.jpg
(sorry its quite a small image)
 
It’s too much when you can see it’s been done. IMO you should only merge when you need to gain a greater dynamic range than a single exposure can give. I know - I’ve been very guilty myself.
 
LeeRatters said:
Yeah, I'd say 15 images is way too much there......
Click to expand...
Stephen L said:
It’s too much when you can see it’s been done. IMO you should only merge when you need to gain a greater dynamic range than a single exposure can give. I know - I’ve been very guilty myself.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback...

I'm totally guilty of using this technique in the wrong situation too :rolleyes:
 
HDR is merely a technique to solve a problem - it has unfortunately become associated with hyper-colours and contrast, but that's not what its about

Many modern cameras have a DR so great HDR is rarely needed, and then there's luminosity masking too to help solve the DR problem

Certainly 11-stops of merging is never needed now (nor are any filters in most cases too - but that's another argument!)

The biggest problem with this image is not the DR but its actually not very interesting - work on what makes a good image first and then see if (very occasionally) a HDR etc approach will actually benefit the image - it rarely does

Dave
 
Depending on your camera you could have quite happily shot that in 1 or 2 exposures by the looks of it.

HDR is too much when it looks like HDR has been done, basically when it looks completely unnatural. You haven't gone to that stage here, but like I said I don't think exposure blending was necessary.
 
The exposure treatment in this is quite uncomfortable. And there's lens flare left of centre - not that flare has to be bad, but here it's certainly the wrong kind in the wrong place. The tonal edge between trees and sky looks to be over-defined (middle right). The texture of the foreground bridge wall draws the attention in a way that's disruptive to the image as a whole, and it would've been better if you could have masked it and darkened it. But if it had been more dominant in the frame somehow, then it might've been ok to emphasise it more. As it stands it's too subsidiary and there's too much else going on, but the image is all a bit unstructured in terms of its look, and what we're meant to pay attention to.

Who knows what anyone's going to see in a photo, but it's the photographer's job to take the lead, at least. To make a distilled statement, shall we say? Only after that, is it up to the viewer to make what they will of it, or not.

Ask yourself where the main interest lies in this frame. The trees are generalised, and so is the sky. The bridge wall (is it cast concrete with lichens on it?) has potential despite my comment above, but the composition would have to change to enable that. I'm also interested in how the tree shadows overlap the track. That could be a combined or different statement.

Keep experimenting and with luck you'll learn to trust your eye more, and factor this into the taking stage. Trust me, it's a life-long journey. But images are for processing, not for rescuing.

Never give up! And keep having fun!
 
droj said:
The exposure treatment in this is quite uncomfortable. And there's lens flare left of centre - not that flare has to be bad, but here it's certainly the wrong kind in the wrong place. The tonal edge between trees and sky looks to be over-defined (middle right). The texture of the foreground bridge wall draws the attention in a way that's disruptive to the image as a whole, and it would've been better if you could have masked it and darkened it. But if it had been more dominant in the frame somehow, then it might've been ok to emphasise it more. As it stands it's too subsidiary and there's too much else going on, but the image is all a bit unstructured in terms of its look, and what we're meant to pay attention to.

Who knows what anyone's going to see in a photo, but it's the photographer's job to take the lead, at least. To make a distilled statement, shall we say? Only after that, is it up to the viewer to make what they will of it, or not.

Ask yourself where the main interest lies in this frame. The trees are generalised, and so is the sky. The bridge wall (is it cast concrete with lichens on it?) has potential despite my comment above, but the composition would have to change to enable that. I'm also interested in how the tree shadows overlap the track. That could be a combined or different statement.

Keep experimenting and with luck you'll learn to trust your eye more, and factor this into the taking stage. Trust me, it's a life-long journey. But images are for processing, not for rescuing.

Never give up! And keep having fun!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think you have said some very very truthful and wise words there and I will definitely take your advice!
 
In peoples eyes is there any images (to compare) of HDR merge done right?
 
My HDR program is EasyHDR 3 which I use on a lot of my single pics - not to give them an HDR look but because that particular program is more like using universal layers and gives a huge range of possible results without going over the top.
 
the stately home by peter looks understated - where as the lake view is quite obvious it's HDR - it looks like a sort of dreamy fantasy image.

i feel the same that the original isn't an overally inspiring image to start with, like a snap from a train window so it's hard to justify the work of the HDR stuff. Sorry if that's harsh but I too am guilty with getting carried away with PP and not putting more thought into the composition and then sitting at the PC thinking 'hmmm why am i unimpressed by this?'

I don't do a lot of HDR but i would be aiming for the look Peter has if i did.
 
[they] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
Click to expand...

I think this is my thinking today. When I discovered HDR, I "HDR'd" everything. Then I started looking for scenes that had high contrast so that I could HDR them. No more shadows for me! Then I realised that everything else I'd learnt about composition and interesting images had gone out the window. Not only were my photos unpleasant to look at, they weren't interesting either.

Losing sight of the original intent by getting lost in the process is very easy for me to do, so the process for me, today, is very simple. I can't remember the last time I used HDR as a technique. Modern sensors have excellent dynamic range allowing one to pull sufficient shadow/highlight detail if required. Film is even more forgiving. The idea of pulling all the extreme tones back into a middleground mush is not something I like. It's not real. And that's not my cuppa.
 
Harlequin565 said:
... Not only were my photos unpleasant to look at, they weren't interesting either.
Click to expand...
^ This.

The original composition has hints of what it could be. I'd have shot over the edge of the bridge, losing the bridge wall as it adds nothing (IMO). I'd also shoot it portrait to emphasise the fact that the railway line heads off into the distance. The trees on the edge add nothing and look distorted (probably from the wide-angle of the lens).
Personally I'd go back to the original files, pick 3 of the exposures -3/0/+3 (or something) then merge those (gently) keeping contrast and dynamic range (ie let shadows be shadows) and then crop it.
15 exposures just seems like too much. Do you usually shoot 15 exposures for HDR? Do you always use all 15? Why so many?
Are you just trying to get detail out of the shadows and highlights and if so, does the image benefit from that?

As a related aside: Sean Tucker did a video a few months ago about embracing shadows. Worth a watch, even if it's only tangentally related.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBAFTR2lScY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top