HDR - unsure.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pook
  • Start date Start date
P

Pook

Guest
Hi

Been playing with HDR. In fact, I've been doing so for years, but manually by having three layers in PS.. one under, one correct, and one over... then just manually brushing through etc. However, I thought I;d give Pixmatic a try, as that seems to be teh weapon of choice.

pic 1 is the original version I did in just PS.. while never intended to be a "HDR" effect pic, it was devved throu three times with different settings and blended.

pic 2 is generated with pixmatic (hence teh watermark... not sure if I want to buy it yet). Do you think the original is best, or the HDR???

Honest opinions please.

normalst200.jpg


GeneratedHDR-Tonemapped.jpg
 
It may be to do with the compression to get the file size - but both pictures have a processed look to them.
Accepting that look I prefer the second one - it just looks more interesting. The hot spot in the sky in the first one looks wrong too.
 
After scrolling between the two for ages, I like the second one best. In comparison, the effect on the first on isn't as strong - I love the sky in the second one. It looks like they are shot in exactly the same location - how come the name has changed on the building? :thinking:
 
minimeeze said:
After scrolling between the two for ages, I like the second one best. In comparison, the effect on the first on isn't as strong - I love the sky in the second one. It looks like they are shot in exactly the same location - how come the name has changed on the building? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll keep playing with different pics. Of course, these are generated from the same RAW. If I took 3 seperate RAW files, then the effect would be better.

The first one has been retouched, and the name changed, as well as the tex disc removed, and the YV antenna removed. The do the HDR version I went back to the RAW files, so no retouching has been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top