Not 100% ideal coulda done with some ND filters I think, but still quite like the outcomes with their various eerie colourings and patternings.

 

 

And got some decent sun to attempt some HDR work this afternoon, nothing too amazing subject wise really and some ghosting issues, but not to bad for first attempts me thinks:

Took attempt 1 out since people don't seem to be able to comprehend they are redundant now.

 

Post from further down page with few more randoms and HDR attempt 2:

Anyway 1 just did not work from RAW file, colours went utterly mental. Other 2 are definitely improved, though sky colour has issues in both.

Oh and yesturday I got stuck inside with rain so 3 random shots from around the house I kinda like even if they aren't anything too amazing.

 

 

Higher res version are on deviant art:

http://sy-accursed.deviantart.com/

If you wanted clear, sharp pics you wouldn't need a Neutral Density filter.

I was thinking ND more from the angle of allowing longer exposure to capture more of cloud detail without the moon becoming blown out. Eg get the moon detail like in 3rd one, but with the cloud detail of the other 3.

Though I suppose HDR would of worked as an alternative method if I'd of thought to spin the dial on my cam and get the triple shots.

 

But ND should've helped intensify the colours a little bit too without getting that fake look I'd get from doing it in post production

Added some shots I just took up top, first attempts at HDR.

Fairly happy with them though they aren't perfect. Think 3rd one is the best of the bunch in terms of the HDR doing its magic but first is the most interesting shot.

Try making an HDR from 1 RAW file. It's all I do and it turns out pretty good. :)

I heard HDR from 1 raw wasn't quite as high quality as fully bracketed HDR work?

Though it is very true in this case the fast moving clouds etc would of worked much better from 1 RAW file to get rid of ghosting. I might have a play later, I have all 9 original RAW files

Those HDR look ugly being blunt.. with moving objects use 1 RAW file, yes some quality is lost, but its better than the ghosting. Its better to have 3 images though, and most cameras can be set up to take rapid pictures with the 3 pictures you need, which also leaves the ghosting effect out.

 

This "HDR" just looks like over-sharpened image to me. Just sayin'

Most, if not all, HDR photograph I ever seen has that "over-sharpened" look as you put it since the whole point is getting the whole image in sharp exposure so I fail to see what you're getting at there.

And I did take them with my camera's auto-bracketing; but it doesn't auto take the three shots you have to press 3 times and it flips the exposure between shots; the speed is only limited but your pressing time (thought if u mash it three times it does sort of "que" the shots if shutter is slow) and shutter speed and in all 3 of these cases can't of been more than 1 second time lapses between first n third photo.

 

 

I'm gonna try and get round to playing with the RAW files today, see if I can't get some better final outcomes.

When using bracketing, put your timer on. It'll take 3 pics one right after another in 1-2 seconds automatically.

I didn't even think to look for timer, good tip.

 

Anyway 1 just did not work from RAW file, colours went utterly mental. Other 2 are definitely improved, though sky colour has issues in both.

Oh and yesturday I got stuck inside with rain so 3 random shots from around the house I kinda like even if they aren't anything too amazing.

 

 

All higher res on DA:

http://sy-accursed.deviantart.com/

No... the good HDRs don't look oversharpened.

 

 

Good ones have more of a Surreal/3D vibe to me. Notice the clouds in these compared to yours.

 

http://moleeth.deviantart.com/art/Tractor-HDR-96812115?q=boost%3Apopular%20HDR&qo=14

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=HDR#/d2764gf

http://bonavista-tim.deviantart.com/art/HDR-Seas-and-Skies-3-165871857?q=boost%3Apopular%20HDR&qo=22

 

They don't seem as over contrasted as yours do. Yours have quite a lot of empty space caused by the excess white. Then some of the lower clouds have a bloom radiating kind of effect. Not to mention I hate lens flares... lol

 

 

I am just pointing out the stuff I don't like/think could be better.

All your examples are night or heavily clouded so they are obviously much darker lighting conditions and cloud colours.

Lens flare meh personal taste, near impossible to get them shots of a low daytime sun without lens flare.

 

And all you're examples I'd say look "over-sharpened" in places, the clouds generally don't but solid cloud cover in darker conditions has no edges to be sharp. All the landscapes, tractors, windows and neon signs look just as sharp if not sharper than my details and of course white edges in bright light can look quite harsh cause white naturally glares, ever tried looking at people in white shirts in bright summer sun? Hurts ya eyes and becames a mass of "empty space" of sheer white.

 

They ain't brilliant HDR subjects or the best photos ever I just fail to see any issue with the stuff you picked out as its standard parts of the HDR-look and natural lighting effects; even more so with your examples as they have the same "over-sharpness" on edges if not more and the lighting and cloud type/form is utterly different so I don't see the relevance in comparing them.

 

It'd be like saying my sky don't look right colouring and posting examples of HDR sunset/sunrise where its orange/red; of course it don't look the same cause its not similar conditons.

Maybe this is too mean but looking at the daytime shots hurts my eyes. Like, physically I can't just stare at them for too long.

 

Way too oversharpened and over-contrasted. Trying to use the excuse of 'HDR' is poor. Even if real HDR looked like that (it doesn't) you just wouldn't use HDR, especially in those conditions. Compositionally they just aren't that interesting either.

Maybe this is too mean but looking at the daytime shots hurts my eyes. Like, physically I can't just stare at them for too long.

 

Way too oversharpened and over-contrasted. Trying to use the excuse of 'HDR' is poor. Even if real HDR looked like that (it doesn't) you just wouldn't use HDR, especially in those conditions. Compositionally they just aren't that interesting either.

I completely agree with Nadril.

 

Especially this photo. Holy [cabbage].

I agree too D: The subjects themselves aren't that interesting and there's way too much contrast and sharpening. It's particularly noticeable in the glare and clouds on the first HDR. I'd say the best is the last HDR because of the intersting cloud colours and shape.

 

Here are some nice HDR examples that I quickly found:

 

[hide]

 

 

[/hide]

I don't see what you mean by "wouldn't use in those conditions" the point of HDR is to capture the detail of both dark and light area without the dark being blotted out in blackness or the light being blown out is it not?

The sun was setting behind the trees giving a bright sky and fairly dim-dark just in front of the trees. to exposure the garden elements correctly created an utterly blown out white sky, to expose the sky correctly created a black murky garden. So exactly the lighting conditions HDR is intended to work around.

 

Also I fail to see the continued use in commenting on the original three when I have re-attempted further down the page or commenting on how they are compositionally boring when I even said this myself in the initial post as they were just experimenting and first attempts at HDR.

=P Of course Nadril would steal my thunder haha...

 

Tripsis... 3rd one is awesome....

 

Sy, I don't see why are still arguing a case... isn't the point of posting it is to get opinions and suggestions? The reason we are commenting is because the new ones are still the same thing with the outside one. The others don't look HDR'd (probably doesn't help you used filters). The outside actually looks worse than the first set with contrasting issues. You should never have contrasting issues with HDR because you have the Darks and the lights and you can modify the levels (correct me if I am wrong someone who has more HDR experience).

Seeing as you're trying HDR's, why not make it easier on yourself and take it off something that is still and doesn't have clouds in it, such as a building? As you've said yourself, one of the problems here is ghosting, so why not make it easier on yourself?

=P Of course Nadril would steal my thunder haha...

 

Tripsis... 3rd one is awesome....

 

Sy, I don't see why are still arguing a case... isn't the point of posting it is to get opinions and suggestions? The reason we are commenting is because the new ones are still the same thing with the outside one. The others don't look HDR'd (probably doesn't help you used filters). The outside actually looks worse than the first set with contrasting issues. You should never have contrasting issues with HDR because you have the Darks and the lights and you can modify the levels (correct me if I am wrong someone who has more HDR experience).

 

 

I have no idea what you're on about here.

Top post some random attempted moon shots then 3 HDR attempts.

Then further down the thread I re-did 2 of the HDRs and posted 2 random photos.

Then ElkNight & Tripisis & Nadril commented on the original 3 HDRs - my point being why keep banging on about them three when they have been redone and clearly attempt 2 is better, if not perfect.

It's no help to me to just have the comments on the first three repeated and repeated when I've re-attempted the compiling and want feedback on the new ones.

 

Yes I asked a question that disagreed with part of what was said, but that's because I genuinely fail to see how to a shot with extreme dark and extreme light that cannot be capture with standard means is not suitable conditions for HDR. Since HDR's whole point is such compositions.

And yes I moaned about parts of feedback about boring composition, but that's because the very first thing I said when posting them was they aren't that interesting as I was just trying out HDR so it's not like I'm taking boring shots of the garden and claiming they are amazing and need to be told they are boring; I acknowledged tht off tht bat.

I'd have thought that if you've got a foreground that you can expose perfectly, but over expose the sky in doing so, and vice versa, an ND grad would be simpler to use than HDR?

 

I'm just gonna echo what the other peoples have said, as it's spot on.

[/TryingToHelpYouImprove] ...

We may as well stop if he won't take criticism.

How is asking a question not taking criticism?

Also how is it not taking criticism to want comments made on the second attempt, which no-one did they just kept banging on about the first attempt?

Especially given the 2nd attempts are quite clearly less sharpened and less contrasted than the originals.

The second lot don't even look like HDR, they look like normal photographs. Do you have a tripod?

Yes I have a tripod and only the garden with blue sky are HDR, all photos in top post were done with tripod; other than the last 3. Though moon I rushed so no remote just shutter button and shivering and last 3 of ornaments n keys were random snapshots while bored done free hand.