Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: sanfairyanne on May 08, 2011, 08:44:03 pm
-
I took these two beginner shots earlier this year. Because they´re both high contrast images I did HDR´s. The waterfall was actually taken with the B and W 10stop ND filter, that particular filter was a bit too dark for my liking because I wanted depth of field but at say f13 I´d have had an exposure so long the water would have had no definition. So I comprimised and shot at f7 with iso 500.
The other shot was much more straightforward but still required HDR.
Other than the clouds being uneven I was quite happy with them at the time. Now after being critisized I´m a bit disheartened.
Anyone like them? :-[
-
... Anyone like them?
Like what!? Oh, wait... you mean those post stamps? Well, at that size everything looks great (or not) ;)
-
Sorry I guess I need to learn to use the website. Maybe easier if I just dump these shots in the trash, I only spent three months waiting for the shots.
-
In all seriousness, they do look interesting, so no need to trash them, just post something bigger, say at least 800 pixels on the longer side.
-
I think I might have the uploads correct this time. I´m not used to PC´s
-
Here´s another HDR, I don´t think it looks unnatural, I actually quite like it. Ok again the clouds are uneven.
I guess the important thing is if I like a picture then that´s the most important thing. The thing is we all like to be complemented on our work, I´m not asking for compliments I just want an honest opinion, are these three shots ok or should I bin them.
-
Actually, they are quite nice. HDR is not that obvious (a good thing). The only nitpick would be that the foreground seems brighter than the clouds (especially in #1 and #3), which may or may not be a consequence of the HDR approach. If the real lighting was such, so be it... although I would still tone it down (the foreground) a bit in post-processing.
-
I agree. Those shots show some good potential, but I was a little curious about the lighting.
Now, as to criticism, everyone gets to have an opinion, and nowhere is it written that said opinions need to match yours. Nowhere is it written either that you need to give the opinions of others more credence than yours. It depends on what these 'critics' have to say, and whether or not you believe that what they have to say has merit. I've often said that if you're shooting for a client, then the client gets to decide what the final image looks like. If you're shooting for yourself, you get to decide what the final image looks like. If someone says, "I don't like it", that's not a criticism, that's an opinion. They don't have to like it. If someone says, "Have you considered..." that's a critique. Critiques can sometimes be harsh, but they can also open doorways to ideas that you may not have considered. Think also of the alternative: if nobody says anything, they may feel that you work isn't worth commenting on. My 2¢.
Mike.
-
Well, I like them: the waterfall is spectacular, and I also found the lake very nice, but the other one not so much.
All three have a little "Orton-like" effect (or "misty" or "defocus" effect, do not know how else to call it), quite common in HDR's made with some software, that I particularly dislike; other than that, there is nothing else that says "HDR" in those, nor I consider them to be over-processed.
Just my two cents.
-
As HDR's go, they look pretty good. I really don't like the look of a lot of such images. One thing though - it doesn't look as if the dynamic range is so great that it couldn't have been captured in a single exposure.
-
There is nothing "wrong" with any of these photos. The HDR is not obvious or heavy-handed at all, nor is there any obvious overprocessing. The first two are actually quite good.
+1 to what Mike said about criticism. You are creating art to please yourself and no one else. Sure, every artist should master their tools and technique, and every artist will get feedback from others. And many artists are not ever satisfied with their own work, which is what keeps us moving forward. Finally, sometimes an image just doesn't work out the way we wanted or expected. But as long as you are satisfied with the final image, or you are satisfied that you have learned from the attempt, then that work is worthwhile.
-
Thankfully I can now reply (something weird has been going on and I keep entering my username and password then getting thrown off)
Anyway in reply to Mike, I hear what you have to say about critisism, I´m just disappointed that after spending 3 months trying to photograph these mountains usually only being able to see them for 1 day out of 10 that the one person (my father) who´s opinion I respect most, doesn´t like them.
The waterfall is probably not sharp in areas of the image I only had a 10stop filter, I wish I had a 6 stop. I´ve a portrait version that may be sharp.
I only HDR´d them because - and remember I´m a beginner here - if I expose for the snow so there´s no blown out highlights ALL the foreground becomes way too dark and that´s not how the eye see´s the view. I did the HDR in Photomatix Pro, which seems to be popular. I did absolutely no other work because I don´t know how to. So their Photomatrix default HDR´s.
It would be nice to sit down with an expert and have them post process them as though they were their own shots. I wonder if it´s in fact possible to find someone to do that, seems to me a great way for a clever person to make money. I love photography but hate computers.
EduPerez, the one you say you don´t like was a direct copy of a shot I saw in a professional gallery. The only difference being that the pro shot had no clouds. Mine actually has better fall color, I had thought the clouds gave it more drama, now when I see them all lopsided I feel the shot is non symmetric.
-
if I expose for the snow so there´s no blown out highlights ALL the foreground becomes way too dark and that´s not how the eye see´s the view.
If you expose for the snow to avoid the foreground becoming dark then spot meter for the snow and raise the EV on the camera by two stops. This will mean that the snow is still exposed well and the foreground is lightened.
-
As HDR's go, they look pretty good. I really don't like the look of a lot of such images. One thing though - it doesn't look as if the dynamic range is so great that it couldn't have been captured in a single exposure.
The last sentence is spot on. A lot of people use the HDR without thinking first about if it is justified. It should only - imo - be used if the dynamic range exceeds the camera's SBR. It is amazing what you can tweak from a RAW image without using HDR. Once you commit the images to the HDR program then it is cross your fingers and hope it isn't overcooked. :'(
-
The last sentence is spot on. A lot of people use the HDR without thinking first about if it is justified. It should only - imo - be used if the dynamic range exceeds the camera's SBR.
Not necessarily. The Signal to Noise ratio in the shadows of a single exposure is much worse than in the shadows of an HDR bracketed exposure. If, and that's the crux, the shadows need significant processing then an HDR exposure will stand much more abuse before the artefacts becomes noticeable. When the hurdles of subject motion and ghosting are taken, an HDR file will always give a better basis for processing.
It is amazing what you can tweak from a RAW image without using HDR.
I agree that many images survive basic tonemapping, as long as the tweaks are limited to global ones. Tonemapping of the details is where it really counts.
Once you commit the images to the HDR program then it is cross your fingers and hope it isn't overcooked. :'(
I disagree. It's usually not the program that makes a mess of things, but the person using it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Stamper,
Ok back to being a beginner here, I´m using the history graph on my LCD, if I see my test shot of the snow shows highlight clipping I reduce the exposure until there´s no longer clipping. At that point that is where the darker areas of the image are too dark.
From what I read into your reply are you saying I shouldn´t be too concerned with highlight clipping. If I raise my aperture by two stops I go from say a 100th of a second to a 25th of a second which is surely going to blow my highlight to hell. Forgive me please if I appear like a stupid dumb sh#t.
Bart, thanks for you´re reply but I really don´t understand you.
-
Stamper,
Ok back to being a beginner here, I´m using the history graph on my LCD, if I see my test shot of the snow shows highlight clipping I reduce the exposure until there´s no longer clipping. At that point that is where the darker areas of the image are too dark.
That's exactly the scenario where HDR can help.
Bart, thanks for you´re reply but I really don´t understand you.
No problem, the response was not directly an answer to your question, but rather a reaction to "Stamper". Your images look fine, not overprocessed into something surreal, so I don't understand the critique you apparently received.
The whole point of HDRs is that at all the relevant brightness levels, the signal has a high quality. That (technical) quality is often expressed as a ratio of signal to noise (S/N ratio). That means that there were 'enough' photons used to record the image detail and lift it above the noise theshold. Due to photon statisctics, shadows are going to be 'noisier' than highlights, and when lifting those shadows in postprocessing that matters a lot. Shadows in HDRs are relatively free of noise, so they can be pushed further before it becomes noticeable. This is especially important when postprocessing/tonemapping midtone and shadow detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Actually, I think the HDR is very obvious. Within 1 millisecond of viewing my brain said "HDR." They do not look natural at all to me. Now, that's OK if it's what you want, what you're after. They seem pretty well done. To me, it's unappealing.
-
Peter,
This is essentially the criticism I get, they look false. Stomper tries to explain how to expose correctly I just don´t really understand him. The snow is the brightest area of the photograph. So I take a shot, check the Histogram, dial my exposure in so that I have no clipping and take the shot. Of course most of the rest of the dark areas of the image, foliage etc are under-exposed.
That´s why I go for an HDR, I hate it when you see those ridiculous HDR´s with bizarre clouds. I want my shots to look natural but it seems in these conditions when photographing snow and foliage my 5DII just doesn´t have the dynamic range necessary.
I realise they are crap photo´s but one day I just might take a good one and it would be nice to be correctly exposed.
Is Stomper trying to tell me to accept some blown out snow as a trade off for better exposed dark areas.
-
The colors are very saturated.
I can imagine thats a problem for some.
But I'd say its a matter of taste.
Maybe a bit like a sandwich with too much butter on it.
High prettiness factor but ... ?
Where are YOU in the images ?
Hope these questions might be helpful...
-
Chris,
I´m stood behind the camera... No seriously I have played with the odd landscape using myself to show scale to a shot but not in this instance.
These HDR´s are Photomatrix pro´s default version. There is absolutely no addition of vibrance or saturation unless of course the software adds some during processing and converting to Jpeg.
-
I've seen far worse examples of HDR. I'd agree that they look a little over-saturated but given that I'm a fan of black-and-white, that's perhaps unsurprising. The second shot in particular I think is lovely.
Jeremy
-
It's not a criticism of you, it's a criticism of HDR. I have fiddled with HDR quite a bit and never got anything I liked. I got a few "lovely" photos with no technical problems I could see, but they just looked fake. The fact is, the real world presents you sometimes with scenes that have black shadows and/or pure white highlights. That's how they are supposed to look! They may not look good in a non-HDR photo, and that is nature's way of telling us that some scenes are not meant to be photographed! I have seen a few (very few) HDR photos that look natural, and I suspect these are cases when the range was just a wee bit beyond what could have been captured in a single show.
-
Peter,
When I get back to my computer (2 months) I´m hoping I can pull out a non HDR image. As I´ve said I want a natural look. Incidentally if anyone cares to look at the rest of the shots I have taken during this trip they can be viewed here:
www.pbase.com/sanfairyanne/southwest
The gallery in question is the one named American Southwest
-
Stamper,
Ok back to being a beginner here, I´m using the history graph on my LCD, if I see my test shot of the snow shows highlight clipping I reduce the exposure until there´s no longer clipping. At that point that is where the darker areas of the image are too dark.
From what I read into your reply are you saying I shouldn´t be too concerned with highlight clipping. If I raise my aperture by two stops I go from say a 100th of a second to a 25th of a second which is surely going to blow my highlight to hell. Forgive me please if I appear like a stupid dumb sh#t.
Bart, thanks for you´re reply but I really don´t understand you.
In my post I quoted + 2 EV. Technically using my Nikon D700 I could go +3 EV. I have seen evidence that this is possible before the whites blowout. I use +2 to be safe. When the graph touches the right hand side of the histogram then I know there is a lot of exposure there that I can exploit in ACR. So touching the right hand side means that my image is underexposed by at least a stop which means I am losing half of the information in my images. Google for exposing to the right. If you are shooting at ISO 200 - assuming this is the native iso on your camera - then I wouldn't be too concerned about noise. They invented noise reduction plug ins to solve the problem. There is no free lunch but this is all possible with a little bit of knowledge. If most of the people looking at your images like them then you are doing something right. ;)
-
>No problem, the response was not directly an answer to your question, but rather a reaction to "Stamper". Your images look >fine, not overprocessed into something surreal, so I don't understand the critique you apparently received.
Most of the posters on the thread disagree with you. This is subjective and all comments are valid?
>Chris,
>I´m stood behind the camera... No seriously I have played with the odd landscape using myself to show scale to a shot but not >in this instance.
>These HDR´s are Photomatrix pro´s default version. There is absolutely no addition of vibrance or saturation unless of course the >software adds some during processing and converting to Jpeg.
I don't think that you can blame the person for the poor results that are produced all of the time. The settings in the program are mostly presets and the user can't fully control the process therefore there has to be some "crossing of the fingers". If a person wants to be fully in charge of the process he will have to look at other methods rather than HDR. There are alternatives that give "better" results. They are more time consuming and require more patience and knowledge. HDR is a time cutting process in which the program makes some decisions for you?
Read this if you have the time and patience. It outlays the two strategies involved. One automated and the other user control.
http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/advanced-photoshop-tutorials/creating-hdr-images/part-1/
-
Stamper,
I started reading that article and didn´t even stop for coffee, it´s very well written and doesn´t use bull sh#t acronyms all the time. I´ve copied and pasted the link to my email so I can look into it further upon my return from South America.
It makes me feel much better to know that by hand HDR process I am not limited to the fake looking HDR´s I so despise.
Thank you very much.
-
A slight variation of the method described in the article is to use the "Blend If" blending mode for the different exposures. Load the different exposures into PS in layers as described in the article, with the darkest exposure at the bottom, then the next darkest, etc. Auto align the layers if necessary, e.g. if you shot hand held. Use the “Blend If” sliders to blend the different layers. Make sure the blends are very gradual so that you get a seamless blend. With this method, you can easily target which portions of each layer you want to use. Once you get the hang of it, it’s pretty easy.
Here is an explanation of "Blend If". http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/blendif.html
-
A slight variation of the method described in the article is to use the "Blend If" blending mode for the different exposures. Load the different exposures into PS in layers as described in the article, with the darkest exposure at the bottom, then the next darkest, etc. Auto align the layers if necessary, e.g. if you shot hand held. Use the “Blend If” sliders to blend the different layers. Make sure the blends are very gradual so that you get a seamless blend. With this method, you can easily target which portions of each layer you want to use. Once you get the hang of it, it’s pretty easy.
Here is an explanation of "Blend If". http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/blendif.html
The best about the "blend if" thing is, you can have it faded by dragging a slider while holding "Alt" and such split it up. I didn't know this for ages - just needed to watch a LuLa video to see it.
-
Yes, Christoph, that's what I meant by "Make sure the blends are very gradual so that you get a seamless blend." I probably wasn't clear enough, so your comment is very helpful.
-
Stamper,
I ordered the book you mention by Harold Davis, as I said earlier his explanation in the link was easy to understand. Hopefully the book will be.
I took a closer, more critical look - albeit only on my camera´s LCD screen - at the shot that has no water. The cloud is shading most of the mid section of the mountain which makes the foreground look over-exposed.
Thankfully I have a big bunch of differing shots that morning from that location and one has some nice light on the mid section. I´m very excited about getting back to a computer and trying to pull up something interesting.
The other two shots may have some potential, if not there´s always autumn next year.
Thanks guys.
-
Looking at the LCD to judge exposure is - imo - a mistake. Composition and the histogram is what you should use it for. Harold Davis explains somewhere that the best use for an image that started out as two bracketed shots is for that image to be set as a background layer in Photoshop and further enhancements made. It isn't, as some assume, the finished image that some people think. ???
-
I think that all of them are right at the edge of too-hdr. At least for my taste. OTOH I've seen so much way-over-the-top hdr processed images selling well at art shows that I wonder if that's the future of sale-able photography. A photographer friend of my has noticed that his heavily-hdr shots get way more views on Twitr than the traditional versions. Maybe the thumbnails look better and thus get more views?
In my own work I often use hdr when I really need supplemental lighting. In AZ there are lots of times when the bright sun areas and shadows are impossible to capture in one exposure. I agree though that through raw processing you can often get two or three exposure versions of the same shot and blend them in Photoshop very nicely.
-
louoates,
You´re probably right about those way over the top HDR´s having more interest. Personally I have no intention of ever selling a photograph. I would prefer to capture an image as best I can and portray it as my eyes saw it so I have something else to gaze at other than television when I´m an incontinent old man.
Haven´t a clue what OTOH means.
-
OTOH = On the other hand...
I sell stuff all the time, mostly landscapes via galleries, so I do a lot of comparison shopping of other work competitive with mine.
<start of rant> I have a standing joke with a photographer friend that we ought to form an organization named Photography Police to rectify the many atrocities popping up recently. First we see a shocking increase in the number of huge canvasses being displayed at art shows that are way beyond (like 5x) the size their resolution would normally make possible. I'm talking about images that are so soft (that's a charitable word meaning blurry) you can nearly see blank canvas between the ink drops. Second we see large canvasses sharpened so mercilessly you can see the halos from five booths away. And thirdly comes the topic of the day here, HDR. I hate to harp on this one beyond an earlier post but, really! I saw some canvasses last week at a photographers gallery space that was so HDR'd I swear he was selling cartoon illustrations. And that was along side some really nicely shot and printed work. ??? </end of rant>
-
So what I'm going to do is take HDR landscapes with my Canon S95, blow them up to 3x4 meters and mercilessly sharpen this with halos of at least 5 mm size ....
-
So what I'm going to do is take HDR landscapes with my Canon S95, blow them up to 3x4 meters and mercilessly sharpen this with halos of at least 5 mm size ....
Why bother with the camera? Just download whatever low-res photograph you can find on the internet...
-
Damn - I still have to work on being even more efficient .... :P
-
I realise they are crap photo´s but one day I just might take a good one and it would be nice to be correctly exposed.
Is Stomper trying to tell me to accept some blown out snow as a trade off for better exposed dark areas.
They're certainly not "crap" photos, but the HDR effect is definitely noticeable in all of them (despite what some others have said), thus they have lost tones that people would consider "realistic", whatever that means. Because of those tones, some folks hate HDR. Ironically, many of the same people who complain about the "false" colors and tones of HDR have no problems with b/w images, which are even more "false". It's a subject thing. If you like the look, go for it.
As for the acceptability of blowing highlights in the histogram, it all depends on the images. Some images require good highlight detail to be effective, others require deep shadow detail. And some require both, which is where HDR comes in handy. Be aware, however, that even if an image's tonal range does not fit into the camera's histogram range (clips at both ends), all is not lost. The camera's histogram displays that tonal range for an 8-bit JPEG image, so if you're shooting RAW (as you should) and processing as 16-bit (as you should), you'll find that there is a lot more information included on both ends and that the image may not be clipping, after all. How much extra highlight and shadow detail exists depends on the scene and the exposure, of course, but there will definitely be more to work with.
-
OTOH = On the other hand...
I sell stuff all the time, mostly landscapes via galleries, so I do a lot of comparison shopping of other work competitive with mine.
<start of rant> I have a standing joke with a photographer friend that we ought to form an organization named Photography Police to rectify the many atrocities popping up recently.
Well, I sell a fair amount of work, and could care less what other photographers do. I don't consider myself in competition with anyone, and certainly don't compare my work with that of others. What would be the point?
As for the "atrocities", just what would those be? Images with a style different than yours, perhaps? That fact is that what you're talking about are TECHNICAL and AESTHETIC considerations, which are the easiest, lowest, and least important factors in the creation of photographic art. Hell, anyone can make a pretty picture, it's simple. What's not simple is making images that say something, that have depth of meaning, that can make people think, that can make people feel.
My advice is to forget what your "competitors" are doing, as such distractions can only serve to hinder your own self expression.
-
Well, I sell a fair amount of work, and could care less what other photographers do. I don't consider myself in competition with anyone, and certainly don't compare my work with that of others. What would be the point?
As for the "atrocities", just what would those be? Images with a style different than yours, perhaps? That fact is that what you're talking about are TECHNICAL and AESTHETIC considerations, which are the easiest, lowest, and least important factors in the creation of photographic art. Hell, anyone can make a pretty picture, it's simple. What's not simple is making images that say something, that have depth of meaning, that can make people think, that can make people feel.
My advice is to forget what your "competitors" are doing, as such distractions can only serve to hinder your own self expression.
Good points. In my examples of "atrocities" I certainly don't mean a "style" that I don't like. These are simply prints made by folks (usually new to Photoshop and HDR) ignorant of the results of printing beyond gamut limits and resolution limits.
I also agree that one should never try to mimic anyone else no matter what the style used or good/bad techniques.
-
Sanfairyanne, hang on. You've been getting constructive criticism, but I don't think anyone has made it clear to you that there are a million ways to render these fine scenes that you've got to please almost anyone's sensibilities. You got the captures -- in this case, the /data/. That was the hard, camping-out-in-the-cold part. Now comes the rest.
These are good images, and the source material is good enough that with a little more finesse in post, they'll both be cracking good.
There is some natural gain in saturation it seems from supersampling in HDR. Objects in supersampled HDR look more "painted" in a way that they eye does not see them. This might be partly because we only sample an object sparsely with our eye in the way we perceive it, and the traditional film image is more or less faithful to that. If you stared at a rock for a solid minute, you would receive sun rays reflected off every micro-facet of it, but your mind wouldn't see it as a /cumulative/ image. In HDR, there is some cumulative effect.
It is a bit more subtle than I first thought, and I don't think the remedy for it is to reduce saturation globally. One of the generally difficult problems with HDR is how to sculpt the toe, especially when you have such good fidelity on the "low" tones.
I'm thinking you could take one of the original captures (the one closest to your final rendering, perhaps the 0EV shot), and use it to re-introduce some of the color from the original shot into the HDR using a "color" blend mode, and a luminosity mask to pass the low tones. But you could also pave some new ground here as well.
-
...but I don't think anyone has made it clear to you that there are a million ways to render these fine scenes that you've got to please almost anyone's sensibilities.
Trying to "please" others is the one sure path to mediocrity.
-
Trying to "please" others is the one sure path to mediocrity.
Sure enough, but nothing to do with what I said.
-
The photos are too small.
How can anybody fairly evaluate those photos at that size?
-
Peter,
This is essentially the criticism I get, they look false.
All "IMO!" :)
I must admit the first (mountains reflecting in lake) isn't too bad, but it still stands out immediately as 'not natural.' The reflected image needs to be darkened, to match the real-world reflectivity of water. I also think the middle tones (forest around mid-picture) are somewhat muddy and indistinct. I'd re-set the black level to drag the darkest forest tones down a stop or so.
The tonal scale for the second (the waterfall) is, IMO, completely whacked. :D The snowy mountains are somehow no brighter than the foreground foliage? The HDR process created a situation where the quality, brilliance, and apparent direction of the light is mismatched - the viewer's eye sees this and says, "Huh?!" Overall, it looks for all the world like a poorly merged composite. (something we've all seen way too many of.)
The tonal characteristics of the are close to looking natural. Perhaps the basic composition is a bit too bi-polar. :P The colors, textures, shapes, etc. of the mountains don't seem to compliment or otherwise 'communicate' with their counterparts living in the trees. IMO, you need to establish some sense of continuity between them. If you could find a place where the shape of the trees mirrors that of the mountains, you'd have that 'bridge' that allows one half to relate to the other. Or re-compose to show a river flowing between them, etc. If I took this, I'd put it down to "Well, that didn't work as well as I'd hoped." :D
-
As they say, 'A picture is worth a thousand words", so I have taken the liberty of tweaking (just a little) the images you posted to illustrate to you how I think the images might be improved. Remember, this is simply MY opinion and may well be worth what you are paying for it :-)
The Waterfall:
The thing that struck me most was that everything seemed to have a red cast. Even the rocks were red. Of course, it is possible that the colour of the light at the moment the image was captured was reddish, but I think the image is improved by desaturating the reds a bit. I also did a bit of selective dodging and burning on the snow and mountains, to make it a bit more interesting and to provide a more definite backstop to the flow of the eye as it explores the image.
The Mountains and Trees:
One of the first things that struck me was that the composition was not balanced. There is an area on the left that adds nothing to the interest of the image and it upsets the balance. Also, the yellow peak is a distraction, drawing the eye away from the main area of importance of the image.
Besides the cropping and a little curves adjustment for the overall image, some selective dodging and burning in the snow/mountain area adds some interest and improves the 'modelling'.
The Reflection:
This image is a bigger challenge. When I first saw the image, all I saw was two bright red stripes. It looked totally unnatural. The red 'stripes' are oversaturated.
There is a lot of information close to the waterline, yet it is hardly visible in your version.
My tweaking involved...
Reducing the red saturation
Duplicate layer of the background layer
Levels to brighten the entire image to bring out the detail in the waterline subjects
Added a mask to the Levels layer
Painted mask to allow all of background layer through except the area of interest near the waterline.
Some selective dodging and burning in the snow/mountain area
Added a bit of local contrast with Unsharp Mask
IMPORTANT! Always keep in mind that these are some of the ways the I might approach the images. They are NOT the only ways and there are undoubtedly much better ways. You should look at what I have done and decide for yourself if there is any merit in my ideas.
Ken
-
I'm very curious to know what the location is - where is this?
By the way, the photos are quite good, in my opinion. They are photos worth waiting 3 months for.
--Paul
-
As has been mentioned, criticism is somebody's opinion.
I personally like the shots. I also visited your Southwestern gallery and my wife and I enjoyed the photos very much.
Keep shooting and follow your instincts because your photos are very good.
Thank you for sharing with us.
-
They're certainly not "crap" photos, but the HDR effect is definitely noticeable in all of them (despite what some others have said), thus they have lost tones that people would consider "realistic", whatever that means. Because of those tones, some folks hate HDR. Ironically, many of the same people who complain about the "false" colors and tones of HDR have no problems with b/w images, which are even more "false". It's a subject thing.
That's the interesting thing. HDR looks more like what our eyes see since we focus and adjust constantly as we view a scene. But we've been programmed by over a hundred years of lenses and film's limitations that we tend to see technically closer to realistic photographs as "fake".
My suggestion would be to decrease the HDR about 10% so that there are some shadowy areas. But to me the photos look fine. I also shoot almost entirely in black and white, so I'm used to this sort of scenery effect, which is more commonly done.