Olde tavern in the sun

[MrB]

Here are two images of the same scene for comparison. The first is a single shot. The second is a three-shot HDR image. Any comments?



-



Thank you for viewing.

Philip

[Bear]

I think you succeeded in the HDR foreground/background lighting, but the original has more charm and draw to the tavern. What is bothersome and distracting is the cables or cable shadows, perhaps you can clone those out.

[dje]

Hi Philip

I like your image and I also prefer the first version. It seems more realistic to me. There's nothing wrong with the HDR version, no extreme tone mapping or anything, but I don't think the shadows need to quite so bright. You can see them well enough in the first image.

Cheers Dave

[FrankMi]

Hi Philip! You have achieved exactly what I would aim for in an image. In the second image you can see the wood on the door, the objects in the windows and even the shadow of the Olde King Arms sign. The white texture above the tavern is not as pronounced but still well within the realm of realistic. The brightness within the arch, in fact, the entire image, is about what I'd expect to see if I were there. For the arch, when my eye looks at something in a shadow, it automatically compensates for the lack of brightness so it looks natural to me.

All in all, it looks to me what I would expect it to look like if I was standing there, viewing the scene. This can be a problem for some viewers. We don't expect a 'photograph' to look like it actually did when we are there, we expect the shadows, for example, to be darker with less detail. As a result, to some, the second shot might look less like we might expect a two dimensional 'photograph' to look like.

In my view, we're not seeing anything 'wrong' in either image so now it comes down to personal preference as opposed to anything the is technically wrong with either image.

Next time you post a result like the second image, don't mention anything about HDR and just try to get opinions about the technical and aesthetic aspects of the image. You might be quite surprised what you get for feedback if you just let the image stand on its own merits with no reference to the technique you used to get the final result. Hope this helps!

[Donald]

All in all, it looks to me what I would expect it to look like if I was standing there, viewing the scene.

And that, I think, is what applying HDR 'technique' is about. And I think you have done that wonderfully well, Philip.

[Harpo]

How you did the HDR looks good. The thing Im not crazy about in the 2nd image is you can see the debris and dirt on top of the arch more clearly.

A question for all… Im curious is this is the kind of image where it is better (or not) if the Pub name and windows above was more centered in the arch? Im just trying to get a better feel for compositions like this. I just find myself shifting to the left when looking at the image trying to see it centered. (of course it doesn't work!)

Otherwise, you guys on the other side of the pond keep posting great images and makes me want to take a photo vacation over there!

[MrB]

Thank you for all your comments on these two images.

In particular, I agree with everything that Frank has written, especially this -

Next time you post a result like the second image, don't mention anything about HDR and just try to get opinions about the technical and aesthetic aspects of the image. You might be quite surprised what you get for feedback if you just let the image stand on its own merits with no reference to the technique you used to get the final result. Hope this helps!

- as, by implication, it is a reminder that most important in photography is the resultant image. However, as photographers, we are also obviously interested to know how to get there, and with these two images I really like the HDR version - as Frank has written, that is how the scene looked at the time - so I mentioned HDR in the OP to get opinions about that aspect.

I will also admit to the sort of omission of information that Frank suggested here. The facts are that the only post-processing done by me were - slight cropping (to get the image content to match closely), downsizing for the CiC website, plus gentle output sharpening. As the photographer, my main contributions were seeing and shooting the image, plus the desire to reproduce the image that I saw as I strolled through the covered way.

The HDR product was the achievement of the amazing technology in the Pentax K-5.

All the camera shooting settings were under my control, but HDR Auto mode was selected for the output. The camera was hand-held for these shots, with image stabilisation switched on. When the shutter button was pressed, the K-5 took three pictures in rapid succession - EV normal, minus 3, and plus 3. The camera’s processor then aligned the three images and merged them into the single HDR image recorded on the SD card. From shutter activation, the whole process takes about 30 seconds.

In my opinion, the result is quite impressive.

Philip

[FrankMi]

Very impressive indeed, even more so being as this was hand-held HDR and there was no post processing done to achieve the detail presented! Thanks for the introduction to the K-5's amazing capabilities!

[dje]

My Nikon compact (P300) has this feature and it works well. I think one or two of the latest Nikon DSLR's also have it.

My guess is that they use buffering and the three images are taken in very quick succession to avoid problems with image alignment. The subsequent HDR processing in camera takes a while of course. Very little tone mapping (if any) is applied, hence the "natural" results.

I think we'll probably see this feature more and more in the latest models.

Cheers Dave

[Bear]

That sounds a bit like Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) called Auto HDR.

[arith]

I think the bottom one could be adjusted with a bit of darkenining around the edges; leaving the door as is. Not very inviting pub though is it.

[PBelarge]

The photographer is the one who should be pleased with his/her image. That said, the image does not have to look as it did when one is standing there making the image. The 2nd image may be what the OP saw when shooting, and if he likes it so be it.

I guess you can tell from above that I like the first image more than the second. I like it because it is easier to focus on the tavern, the dark forefront allowing the eye to move to the brighter portion (tavern).

Arith mentioned some vignetting may help the second image, I also agree that would work with me as well. Remember this is just my opinion...