Going back through my archives I found a few images where I took a series of exposures because of a severe dynamic range issue. . I knew that this particular shot was going to be a little problematic for me because I really wanted the details to pop in the driftwood. 
. To get the driftwood bright enough, I know my sky was going to be overexposed. . I originally planned to expose for the driftwood in one shot, the sky in another and blend them, which is what I did at first I didn’t really punch the color much at first because it just didn’t seem to work well.
I decided to go back and see what Photomatix did for this shot beyond what I originally had done in Photoshop . I popped the color a bit more becasue there was so much detail to play with. The result is quite different, and to be honest, I like both versions The original one I did as a blend in Photoshop has a grittier feel to it The HDR one is more colorful, with clearer details. I definitely brought out more of the green plants in the foreground, where they fall into shadow in the original I can see where people might prefer one over the other, it is all a matter of personal taste. . Let me know which you prefer and why.
I’m not a fan of a lot of over the top HRD, but here it sure works nicely. I love both pics though. Each has its own feel – the 2 shot photo a little moodier, and more realistic of course.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing these images. I have to go with the Photoshop blend in this case. I must say I have yet to come to terms with the obvious HDR look, and specially in nature images. I think the look can look cool as an effect in portraits and urban scenes. However I think it also depends on how you process the images in Photomatix too. That said I agree the greenery comes to life in the HDR shot. I think our eyes are so used to seeing the normal shots and perhaps the two exposure blends, that perhaps we are still adjusting to the increased dynamic range in HDR blends. Maybe in a couple of years the HDR is the norm! Who knows…soon the cameras will probably be able to capture this or process it in software in-camera and it might become the norm.
However, in the end, it comes down to personal taste. Tony Sweet has done a lot of HDR work lately as you aware I’m sure, and I’m still preferring the look of his ‘normal’ images over the HDR ones.
Anyway, it’s interesting to see the two versions.
All the best,
Thomas
Thanks for the comparison. I like the PS version better, as well.
Scott
I think I like the “darker” one…but I’m a sucker for high contrast.
I prefer the PS-version. I like photographs to look like photographs, not digital images. The HDR-look doesn’t appeal to me. I especially don’t like the “plasticky” effect it has on images (best described as unevenness in exposure – on some images more obvious than others of course.).
Thanks for the feedback folks. I admit that the HDR on this one is borderline the typical “HDR” look for me. I bet if I played with the settings in the software a bit more, I could get it a bit more natural looking.
Mark,
I have to join the crowd on this one and say that the PS one is the better one. You might have been able to get the plant color to pop more by saturating the green in it. But overall, it has a more natural feel to it for me even if it is darker in color.
HDR results are still a bit subjective for the viewer. If I had only seen the HDR one, I would still have like the shot. But maybe felt it needed to be scaled back a bit as it feels to overdone. As my friend Jon always says: “I push the image just to the point of it becoming obvious and then pull it back a little bit.”
Just back in town and chiming in late, but I have to add to the votes for the PS version. While I deeply admire the techinque in the HDR version and it succeeds in causing me to be even more attracted to investigating the technique, for me the PS version is more successful in pulling my eye through the image and making for a delightful flow. In the HDR version, I feel somewhat bogged down. I wish I could state this in a more articulate manner, but maybe that half cup of coffee isn’t doing it.
I too prefer the PS version. The HDR version is good in that it shows all the detail and colors and yet it looks ordinary to me. The PS one has a mood and personality that sets off the landscape and enhances the perspective. How about combining the two?? Wonder what that might do…
Mark I love the first one but I’m a drama lover of deep tones.
Perhaps the magic of photography is not being able to capture everything and having to choose what should be documented?
And another vote for the PS-version of the photo. Simply because the shadows are far more exiting in that version. Especially the loss of shadows in the sky and near the driftwood (lower part, where the two lead-in branches meet) makes the HDR-version somewhat artifical and boring (to me). Taking that together with the oversaturated colors in the sands… No, I really would vote for the traditional approach here.
Just my two cents of course…
Mark, I like different things about both versions. To the extent that either one represents your own vision for how you want to show the scene, I’d have to respect that. Of course any one of us might portray things in a different way… it’s part of the fun in talking with other photographers, as long as we don’t get prescriptive on each other.
I don’t view either version as “realistic” as such, though the PS blend does look more like people expect traditional photographs to look. (At least, since the advent of GND’s and two-exposure PS blends, that is.) Rather, each version creatively emphasizes certain qualities of the available light — tonality, contrast (global, local or micro), hue, saturation, etc. Depending on what kind of presentation one wants to realize, different combinations of work may be suitable.
As a known advocate of HDR
I will say that my personal approach would indeed be something like a blend of the two treatments, as Diane wondered about above.
Also, as an aside on the term “HDR look”, there are lots of folks using HDR technique without making the results look like what many others associate with the technique based on Flickr pools or what have you. I use HDR in many images, and few of them have the “Flickr look”. That’s because HDR technique is just a component of my workflow, and I use it in combination with a variety of other things to get the visual result and image qualities I’m after. Part of my style is to maintain a more traditional “photorealistic” appearance. HDR workflow is much more encompassing of different visual styles than I think is often realized. The key is for the photographer to maintain control over the image, rather than give up control to the set of sliders or buttons made available in any given software tool.
Christian Bloch’s site has a new entry talking a bit about the situation of HDR workflow vs. what people often call the “HDR look”, including a reference to some recent comments by Erik Reinhard.
http://www.hdrlabs.com/news/index.php?id=2398485298318604220
Good points Royce. I will be the first to admit whenever someone mentions “HDR” – a certain type of imagery pops up in my head. Perhaps it is because of the learning curve that is going on with a relatively new technique – similar to the first use of color saturated films like Velvia. Many people simply thought they looked garish and “unnatural.” (Though I personally hate the term ‘unnatural’ – what the heck does that mean?
) I see many of the same comments about HDR. I will say that your imagery is some of the first I have seen that creates a better balance and breaks that stereotype. This is what prompted me to take some closer looks at its capabilities.
One of the better examples of HDR that I have seen, Mark. The really sick type of HDR is when it looks like HDR.
Hi Mark,
while you asked for it: my personal take on this is that I do not like the HDR version at all – I rarely do – especially not for nature and wildlife photography. It is something completely different for abstracts and other art photography. The reason is that HDR in most cases looks completely unrealistic, even garish in my opinion and I feel if you want to catch a certain mood and emotion, a view that lasts only for a second HDR changes too much of it. Photography is all about catching the moment – at least regarding nature photography.
In this very example when the light recedes, so do the colours of objects and especially plants. You would never see such green in a light such as this – remember the colours receding while diving. No-one would expect the grass and leaves to be that green. Also somehow the HDR flattens the whole image, structures become more detailed but strangely lose their depth. In this HDR photo exactly the opposite happens what painters try to achieve: depth. Unless the image is meant to be flat and 2-dimensional. I don’t think that wildlife and landscape photography should take this path – this would be paradox. Doesn’t landscape photography try to re-create the feeling you have when standing within a scenery that seems to go beyond horizon and the universe?
The second photo is sadly reduced to its plane – that of 2 dimensions.
I think HDR is well overestimated as it often happens with technical evolution. It should be used as a tool to play with but not taken as a recipe for good photos. We rely already too much on technical schnickschnack and should rather return to the essence. But that’s only my humble opinion of an photographic amateur.
Warmest regards,
Petra
Petra,
I have pretty much come to similar conclusions with this image. I appreciate the honest and candid feedback. Of course, I am still new at HDR – and want it to simply come closer to my vision, which may take more practice with the controls available. Definitely say no to technical schnickshnack!