I find these HDR's often give a surreal look. Very suitable for some images but actually spoil/detract from many others. Guy Gowans methods (Retouch for instance) when set-up give a much more natural look. With the image shown - the result is rather good as a surreal feel is in keeping with the subject. I have often seen some landscapes for instance, showing marked signs of false colour and exaggerated detail in shadows and highlights that look totally unreal. Wonderful if that's the intention but for me - it often destroys what could have been a perfectly good image without the HDR processing. It is easy to get carried away with image 'enhancement' applications like these. Remember when use of coloured (both graduated and other) were used extensively to jazz up images that were fairly mediocre in the first place? This quickly went out of fashion. Chas's images are often well thought out and composed but I think he should use HDR images sparingly to avoid that trap of over-use for it's own sake - if you follow my drift. Here's one of my own shot recently - HDR'd but which would and does stand-up perfectly well as it was shot - without any undue 'retouching' or processing. Time of day, time of year and being there are still key. I'll post the images as soon as I find a way of doing so...???
Could you publish some better quality images as these don't have the sharpness we expect of PressMen. I guess you degraded them to protect copyright abuse etc but maybe showing them smaller but sharper would be better?
I'm wondering if we could compare Guy Gowan's methods to improve images with the result we obtain with PhotoMatix Pro with that enhanced using Aperture? If we compare results and then determine the relative quality and maybe time to produce a reasonable result - it might be worth publishing here. I know our processing times may be different but we can compare relative speeds of the applications on the same computer. What do you think?
5 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I find these HDR's often give a surreal look. Very suitable for some images but actually spoil/detract from many others. Guy Gowans methods (Retouch for instance) when set-up give a much more natural look. With the image shown - the result is rather good as a surreal feel is in keeping with the subject. I have often seen some landscapes for instance, showing marked signs of false colour and exaggerated detail in shadows and highlights that look totally unreal. Wonderful if that's the intention but for me - it often destroys what could have been a perfectly good image without the HDR processing. It is easy to get carried away with image 'enhancement' applications like these. Remember when use of coloured (both graduated and other) were used extensively to jazz up images that were fairly mediocre in the first place? This quickly went out of fashion.
Chas's images are often well thought out and composed but I think he should use HDR images sparingly to avoid that trap of over-use for it's own sake - if you follow my drift. Here's one of my own shot recently - HDR'd but which would and does stand-up perfectly well as it was shot - without any undue 'retouching' or processing. Time of day, time of year and being there are still key.
I'll post the images as soon as I find a way of doing so...???
This comment has been removed by the author.
Could you publish some better quality images as these don't have the sharpness we expect of PressMen. I guess you degraded them to protect copyright abuse etc but maybe showing them smaller but sharper would be better?
I'm wondering if we could compare Guy Gowan's methods to improve images with the result we obtain with PhotoMatix Pro with that enhanced using Aperture? If we compare results and then determine the relative quality and maybe time to produce a reasonable result - it might be worth publishing here. I know our processing times may be different but we can compare relative speeds of the applications on the same computer. What do you think?
Post a Comment
<< Home