It's been a while since we've had any activity on the blog. I know there's been lots of shooting out there so it would be great to see some of it (Paul...what about some of your PAWs, Neil what about some street candid's with your new toy :-) ).
Here's a shot from a recent workshop in the Berg that I'd like some feedback on if possible. It's a 5 image HDR (there were more shots but I've only used 5. One of the more complex HDRs that I've done requiring basic as well luminosity masks to get the tonal range that I wanted (a pic of the layer palette before flattening and doing final touches - I had to flatten as the computer wouldn't allow more steps). The problem is that I'm worried that it looks too much like an HDR.
then there's the flare. Yay or nay? Part of me loves it, part of me hates it. Hard to decide really.
so any comments or suggestions would be great as I'm finding myself on the fence on this one.
Cheers
E
5 comments:
Nice E! Gotta love them mountains.
It is a yes on the flare from me... Well Yes and a teeny-weeny no. The sun's flare over the horizon is a cracker. The only downer is the large orb of pale light caste over the front of the mid ground mountains. I dont mind the circle of paler light that disappears over the top of the mountain but it is the one lower down along the face that is a little worrying. Still yay on the flare though!
As for the 'overdone' HDR? Not at all. I wouldn't worry (you traditionalist you!) Especially with landscapes I think one shouldn't be too shy on the HDRing. Unfortunatly technology has cranked up our expectations and HDR is no exception. This means that already (or once) spectacular scenic images are received with less enthusiasm when left 'untweaked'. Sad, I agree. More work on the computer, yes. So does one pander or does one strive for .... wait for it .... authenticity? (a desperatly difficult word to throw in with photography.)
Paul.
Howzit Paul. The only problem with the HDR thing is it's certainly become quite 'faddish'. I try very hard to get a look that is not immediately obvious as an HDR, but this one most certainly is. Glad you like it though! The sunspots were a hell of a lot of work. when I next see you I must show you the spots before I started work on em. A useful little technique to tone down colour (or change it entirely) while retaining textural detail is to create a new empty layer at the top of the stack, change the blend mode to colour and then paint the desired colour using the brush tool. Possibly I should try and darken the large spot a bit more to try and lesson its 'glare'.
thanks for the comments and good luck over the fest and with your other work (you're sounding busy!)
E
HDR has bad reputation in my book mainly due to the popularity of hdr software which takes a lot of control away . In fact some people would not even call what you did HDR more like blending. I know a play on words but I associate HDR with photomatix type software which is a look I do not like. I use blending a lot ( wish I had seen your excellent tutorial on your blog early, would have saved me a lot of time !)
Back to the shot. An ideal situation to use blending and it has come out well. I am not a fan of flares but that is a minor personal point
A query. How would an image like the one posted or similar rate on a getty submission. I have always been of the impression (mistaken I suspect) that the less of any type of post production, the better. I am not suggesting your image is 'over worked' at all, I am just curious as to how much post production is deemed ok by the gettyites?
Paul.
Actually the post-processing on Getty's images is often extremely heavy. A lot of my work on both Getty and OSF has blended exposures. then there's the so-called nature shots that get returned because the leaves haven't been cleaned of blemishes. As soon as they are doctored up a little they get accepted. although lot of the work that I produce is for supposedly editorial and 'textbook' usage, plenty gets into advertising (maybe I should rephrase that to say that most of my actual sales are to the advertising market). Advertising doesn't care a jot about authenticity. Darwyn Wigget, whose work I really adnire, recently wrote a piece pointing out that some of his biggest nature stock sellers are completely fabricated. Shots of piers jutting out into perfectly placid lakes with wonderful sunset lit mountains in the background. Off course the piers and the mountains are completely different photographs combined into a single image. So, in this context, HDR is perfectly acceptable even in terms of authenticity (I guess you haven't actually changed anything other than the exposure).
E
Post a Comment