Thank you for your comment. I agree that HDR can sometimes go overboard and that the look is not for everyone, however I think it can also be totally justified in some cases.
This picture is a good example of such a case because the bright sun and the dark shadow of the windmill make for a very broad dynamic range that current camera sensors simply cannot handle. You're left with the choice of either doing a middle exposure and pulling down highlights/up shadows or exposing for the highlights or the shadows. Exposure blending (or HDR) can easily solve this issue by artificially broadening your dynamic range by up to 6 stops. In the end, this is a way of rendering an image that's closer to what you actually see IRL with your eyes, as human vision is very complex and can handle very strong contrasts more easily than a camera.
As far as technique goes, I did not use the simple HDR function but actually blended the underexposed and overexposed layers with blend if, luminosity masks, and the opacity slider, which seems to be your method too.
For the record, I think your analogy is very shortsighted as HDR can mean anything from the over-the-top Urbex look to more sutble landscape photos like this one. In the end, it's becoming less and less needed as camera sensors improve and we might actually come very close to human vision as years go by. Until then, I think exposure blending can still have its place.
I agree HDR is a great tool, and when used subtlety it can be a more accurate depiction of an experienced scene than one exposure. That said, too much HDR is a "know it when you see it" sort of thing, and this crosses the line for me. It's just too "World of Warcraft village". I would love to see a version with more shadow preserved and less "glow".
I guess we just have different ideas of what "subtle" is. I noticed the HDR effect the instant I saw this photo. It's not just the colour, but also the halos and the "softness" of it. To me, this picture does not "look more like what you see IRL", the grass for example looks alien to me, especially the bit between the water and the yellow part of the sunset. Then there is the absence of darkness. The sun is essentially down. Even with our highly dynamic eyes, the world doesn't look so bright at those hours and moreover you'd expect a lot more variation in luminosity across the scenery.
My 3D-imagination skills are horrible, but I would imagine that a large part of the field on photo middle-left is in the shadow of the windmill and the house. All of that is gone or at least highly diminished.
In the end, I think the point I'm trying to make is that it's okay that not everything in your picture is visible. Our mind is brilliant at filling in gaps based on the merest suggestion of what should be there and it can do so without detracting our attention from the key element of the composition. Whereas when everything is equally visible, we have much less information to guide what we should be looking at and indeed, I notice my eyes going in circles when I look at your photo: windmill - yellow sunset - windmill reflection - middle left field - windmill. In the end, my eyes are tired because they have no clear resting point.
Anyway, again all of this is really my wishy washy "gut feeling" about photography, so I would fully understand if you disagree.
Fair comment ! To be clear, the general softness you mention has nothing to do with HDR but is created in post.. As for the grass, I actually turned green saturation almost all the way down but it does stay vibrant because of all the yellow given by the sun's light. Have a good day!
This is an amazing photo OP. The composition is fantastic, so don't even listen to this other guy. The color work is on point. I can only hope to take a photo this good some day.
Take 3 pictures - or more if you like, more causes the soft edge effect you see in the OP - one underexposed, one over exposed and one exposed just right. Load it into lightroom or your photo editing suite of choice, and combine the three pictures using the hdr macro. Crank up the saturation for bonus points!
It's actually pretty standard in my opinion. Nothing great about the composition. No interesting lines or people. Landscapes are the go to for new photographers.
For the record, you thought this was good enough to post online. 1 upvote (your own) and no comments. I mean, what else is there to say? Better luck next time?
9
u/remydc Sep 05 '18
Thank you for your comment. I agree that HDR can sometimes go overboard and that the look is not for everyone, however I think it can also be totally justified in some cases.
This picture is a good example of such a case because the bright sun and the dark shadow of the windmill make for a very broad dynamic range that current camera sensors simply cannot handle. You're left with the choice of either doing a middle exposure and pulling down highlights/up shadows or exposing for the highlights or the shadows. Exposure blending (or HDR) can easily solve this issue by artificially broadening your dynamic range by up to 6 stops. In the end, this is a way of rendering an image that's closer to what you actually see IRL with your eyes, as human vision is very complex and can handle very strong contrasts more easily than a camera.
As far as technique goes, I did not use the simple HDR function but actually blended the underexposed and overexposed layers with blend if, luminosity masks, and the opacity slider, which seems to be your method too.
For the record, I think your analogy is very shortsighted as HDR can mean anything from the over-the-top Urbex look to more sutble landscape photos like this one. In the end, it's becoming less and less needed as camera sensors improve and we might actually come very close to human vision as years go by. Until then, I think exposure blending can still have its place.