Hi David, i like both images and am quite a fan of HDR. but i realy think the first image didnt need it! its excellent without the tone mapping oops! first one was previously done.... i prefer the first attempt!
Like Mark I too prefer the first image. The second one is a little over done for mine
The first one seems to look what I might see with my naked eye. Reasonably realistic (perhaps the seats/pews are a bit overpowering).
The second image looks to me like a very well done oil painting. It's quite obviously not real looking.
But to me this doesn't imply that the first one is better than the second. It comes down to what you (the artist) saw and felt when you were at the site, and how you wanted to portray it having had the first hand experience of seeing and feeling it. To me this is what creativity is all about. When I do closeup flowers, I don't necessarily do a perfect colour match to the real flower - more like what I felt it was like.
They are both very good, and I'd be quite pleased to have done either one.
Hi, I have just started to experiment with Topaz and NIKS plugins on Paintshop instead of using Photomatix. Very interested in your excellent results, the second image does appear to have a red tinge to it, that could be down my old eyes
No doubt some will crucify me for saying this, but just about every time I see an image that's been reworked with NIK plugins, it just "never looks right" to my eye. I've tried some of them myself, and given up on them. I know that many folks love them, but they just don't "do it" for me I'm afraid
I can't even see it; I thought the first was HDR. Never mind, something going on here. It would be better if perspective was corrected, vertical and horizontal.
I don't know how you did it; but the light is in range in the non HDR.
Getting the best out of tonemapping takes time to develop the techniques. Don't get discouraged just because it doesn't have widespread acceptance just yet, you're getting there. Think of tonemapping as a tool to enhance the parts of an image that need a lift (in most cases) rather than the entire image. That's not to say that you can't tonemap an entire image and have it come out right, it's very image specific what works well.
On way to determine if the tonemapped vibrance and colors are 'over the top' is to compare the result carefully with the original bracketed images. If the colors and saturation are significantly different or more intense than the original, it most likely needs to have some of the original blended back in to bring it closer to reality.
I've noticed that when HDR is mentioned, it raises a bias in some folks that causes them to start looking for what's wrong with color tones in the image. I use HDR techniques in bits and pieces of most of the images I post but for me it is just another tool to being out the best an image has to offer, I don't mention 'HDR' in my posts. If there is something about the image that folks feel needs improvement, they tell me. The funny thing is that, most often, the area that 'needs improvement' is not the area that was tonemapped! Most folks on the forum have learned that I like bright, colorful, contrasty images so perhaps they just shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, 'yup, that's Frank all right'.
I think you're PP skills are coming along nicely. Keep on having fun!
Both the images are HDR. Image Before is the tone-mapped image ex Photomatix. This image had had various retouching via layer masks to altar window and front of altar.
Image After is This image reworked using PS CS5 and Topaz Detail and Topaz Adjust.
Perspective has been adjusted .
Many thanks for your constructive comments. The punch line to each image is that they have both been entered into competitions by my Club.
The Before image was marked down on the fact that the walls were an off colour to the judges eye, and the light from the window on the left had a blue tinge/fringe. Did not make the cut to be placed. As did 70 other images.
The image was then reworked to see if I could improve it, the result was image AFTER. This image was then entered by my Club into an inter-club competition.
This time the judge spent 10 minutes singing about the image with no negative feed back !!! Score 20/20.
"walls were off colour" - did they take colour chips to the church to compare to your image?
"light from the window on the left had a blue tinge/fringe" - any knowledgeable artist knows that north light and south light have different colours (temperatures). Most amateur photographers know that.
The judges comments were more than interesting. Art by its nature is subjective, and photo judges too often try to be objective even if they don't know the basics of light and colour.
PS - I was wondering if you had used a Tilt/Shift lens to achieve the perspective.
Image taken with a Sigma 10-22 mm and perspective corrected in Lightroom after tonemapping.
At the risk of being burnt at the stake, I cannot understand why someone would want to turn a perfectly good photograph into the equivalent of an artificial looking painting. I use HDR regularly when making composites but I just don't get tone mapping. All a matter of personal taste though. Each to his own.
Where are those matches????
To my eye, what comes out the end of the ultra tone mapping process is more "surreal art" than it is a "photograph". Not saying that there's anything wrong with that per se, but I don't find anything realistic about them. In my opinion they may well do well in an art competition, but personally, I don't think they should have any place in a photography competition. Just my opinion -- hope I didn't offend anyone!
Of course not Colin and i agree with you #2 is over done for my taste but you didnt expect me to miss the chance of a joke did you
Really, when one thinks about it, the camera doesn't record what we see - because we all see differently.
That's why I don't judge photos, or partake in "competitions". Whose artistic vision is the "right" one? And why?
I used to belong to a camera club, and one young lady's photo was of the overhead electric lines of trolley buses at an intersection. The judges went on and on about the exposure, the background, but totally missed the intriguing interplay of the lines. That's what the photo was all about, but they couldn't see it. In the purest sense, it was creative art. I gave up on the club. So did she.
And ... the camera doesn't work like the human eye does ... which is why images will ALWAYS need some degree of PPReally, when one thinks about it, the camera doesn't record what we see - because we all see differently.
Me too. There's the old saying that "Those who can, do ... whilst all the others teach". Personally, I'm starting to wonder if there should be another saying along the lines of "those who can't do it - or teach - end up being judges"I used to belong to a camera club, and one young lady's photo was of the overhead electric lines of trolley buses at an intersection. The judges went on and on about the exposure, the background, but totally missed the intriguing interplay of the lines. That's what the photo was all about, but they couldn't see it. In the purest sense, it was creative art. I gave up on the club. So did she.
Kinda reminds me of something that advertising guru David Ogilvy said: "I don't want you to tell me that my advertisements are funny or creative -- I want you to tell me that they were so compelling that you bought the product". I know EXACTLY how he felt.