Did I do too much ...

[tonysmith]

Hello, I'm not very confident of my post processing and think I have a tendency to sometimes push too far.

I would appreciate some opinions on which of these is best, and what I might have done differently

The first is straight from the camera.
The second used Photomatix HDR at the default settings to open up the shadows (3 bracketed images).
The third is the second pushed a bit further.

Many thanks

Tony

[attachment=11839:Original.jpg]
[attachment=11840:HDR.jpg]
[attachment=11841:HDR_Plus.jpg]

[Joe Behar]

Hello, I'm not very confident of my post processing and think I have a tendency to sometimes push too far.

I would appreciate some opinions on which of these is best, and what I might have done differently

The first is straight from the camera.
The second used Photomatix HDR at the default settings to open up the shadows (3 bracketed images).
The third is the second pushed a bit further.

Many thanks

Tony

I think you didn't push it far enough

This is my version of the first HDR
[attachment=11842:HDR.jpg]

[rcdurston]

I think you didn't push it far enough

This is my version of the first HDR
[attachment=11842:HDR.jpg]

Way way too far

[Joe Behar]

Way way too far

That's what makes our shared passtime so great. Different opinions and they're all valid.

[dalethorn]

I think you didn't push it far enough
This is my version of the first HDR
[attachment=11842:HDR.jpg]

This version is perfect.  For me, first impressions count the most.  In the originals, the first was OK but the table too dark and dull.  The second seemed to increase the white content, which wasn't good because there was already enough white with the clouds etc.  The third just made the second a bit more surreal.
I would have guessed most HDR would just increase the saturation, but this example did it right.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Tony's third version says to me, "plausible", but Joe's version says to me "unbelievably oversaturated." I know that the oversaturated look is quite popular in certain circles, but my own preference is for something that I have some hope of believing could actuially exist. So: I would suggest somewhere in between Tony 3 and Joe should be about right (IMHO).

[John R]

Tony's third version says to me, "plausible", but Joe's version says to me "unbelievably oversaturated." I know that the oversaturated look is quite popular in certain circles, but my own preference is for something that I have some hope of believing could actuially exist. So: I would suggest somewhere in between Tony 3 and Joe should be about right (IMHO).

They all look acceptable to me. Only the person who took the shot would know whether the colours or light were as bold and clear as the PP or original image. I used to shoot slides and many images were just as rich in colour as the blue skies and white defined clouds in these samples. No tricks or PP. All it takes is a polarizer. All the image banks wanted only punchy slides and the subtle work was more often than not, relegated to personal exhibitions or fine artists. Also most were slightly underexpsoed for maximum projection effect.
Two things to consider IMO: Does the outcome represent what you want to convey- that is, is the image meant to convey an impression rather than reality. The other is whether you want actual documentary style images. If so, you want the image and light to be as realistic as possible, which is easier said than done, because differences in PP programs and outputs from cameras. Polarizers attempt to eliminate spectral light, but seldom can they eliminate all the spectral light. And too much makes the image look dead and flat. Looking back at my images, I find I overused and overpolarized my images to boost the slides when projected. So, to me that answer has to be what is it you want to convey. I am sure most of us can decide whether an image is overdone or not to our liking for any number of reasons, not least is the very subjective issue of TASTE.

JMR

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

They all look acceptable to me. Only the person who took the shot would know whether the colours or light were as bold and clear as the PP or original image. I used to shoot slides and many images were just as rich in colour as the blue skies and white defined clouds in these samples. No tricks or PP. All it takes is a polarizer. All the image banks wanted only punchy slides and the subtle work was more often than not, relegated to personal exhibitions or fine artists. Also most were slightly underexpsoed for maximum projection effect.
Two things to consider IMO: Does the outcome represent what you want to convey- that is, is the image meant to convey an impression rather than reality. The other is whether you want actual documentary style images. If so, you want the image and light to be as realistic as possible, which is easier said than done, because differences in PP programs and outputs from cameras. Polarizers attempt to eliminate spectral light, but seldom can they eliminate all the spectral light. And too much makes the image look dead and flat. Looking back at my images, I find I overused and overpolarized my images to boost the slides when projected. So, to me that answer has to be what is it you want to convey. I am sure most of us can decide whether an image is overdone or not to our liking for any number of reasons, not least is the very subjective issue of TASTE.

JMR

Good points John. I almost went back to edit my previous post to admit that I do like saturated colors in photos (even my own)  that are clearly not meant to be realistic. And it does come down to taste.

[new_haven]

Just for fun, my version.

[Joe Behar]

Just for fun, my version.

As long as we're having fun, here's yet another variation.

tonysmith, please don't take any offense to this. I'm not trying to say you did or did not do anything right or wrong, just that there are an almost infinite number of variations that might work for any given image.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

As long as we're having fun, here's yet another variation.

tonysmith, please don't take any offense to this. I'm not trying to say you did or did not do anything right or wrong, just that there are an almost infinite number of variations that might work for any given image.

Joe,

I like that one best of all so far. But I'm a big fan of B&W.


What it does for me is remove immediately the questions of "Is the vegetation color or sky color correct?"

[tonysmith]

Thanks, everyone.

At first I thought Joe's first revision was way better than mine, but when I compared them side by side I lined up with Rob & Eric and thought something in between would be ideal. New Haven's version was closer to the original and did not match my memory of the brightness of the day and the colours. I know B/W is great for some images, but did not think this was one - something important was removed.

I am going back to work on the original again in Lightroom, without the HDR.

This has been a usual discussion for me.  Thank you Joe for kicking it off, and to you others for joining in. I have seen some amazing images on your web sites.

Regards

Tony

PS Joe, when will you have some LX3s in stock at Queeen St?

[Joe Behar]

PS Joe, when will you have some LX3s in stock at Queeen St?

Toney,

They seem to be on perpetual back order. The latest date I have is an estimated April 30. That does not sound quite right to me though. let me check and get back to you.

[tonysmith]

Sorry, meant to say "useful" discussion

Tony