Fell View

[John 2]

I've often made the point that I'm not a fan of HDR for the sake of HDR but occasionally an image is striking enough to catch my eye. So I thought I would try. This was made using a programme called SNS. It's really good for just compensating for lack of dynamic range but it needs pushing quite hard to approach the extremes of the effect. I'm genuinely not sure of this image so comment are very welcome.

[wlou]

John 2, I like it. Nice vibrant fall colours. The blue skylight in the roof keep my attention, anyway to remove it? All in all a nice country scene.

[IzzieK]

I like it, John --- I am not a big fan of HDR either and I believe some overdo them and I still do not understand why and how they sort of look at the "beauty" of unnatural colourings. Shots like this are really beautiful. I like the whole shot altogether. I think you did very well indeed.

[Mike Buckley]

A gorgeous bucolic scene handled very well in the capture and post-processing.

[Digital]

John, you did a good job, IMHO, on this photo.



Bruce

[FrankMi]

Hi John. This image has a lot about it that I like, an interesting foreground against the lush green meadow, the nice detail in the middle ground and background, and the very interesting sky and cloud formations. In short, it should be just about perfect.

Something just doesn't feel quite right to me. Perhaps it's the very competitiveness of all the parts of the scene? My eye is drawn without rest hither and yon, trying to take it all in. It is almost as if no one part of the scene is strong enough to be the focal (or resting) point?

Let me explore a bit. Let's say that the foreground and meadow was a little more subdued and not quite as vibrant. The attention would then be more solidly directed towards the middle ground's wedge of trees and the buildings contained therein.

But even at that, although the background would complement the middle ground nicely, the sky is so dramatic as to pull the eyes off the middle ground. So, what if the sky was a little more subdued as well? Would the foreground and sky better complement the vibrant middle ground and let it take a commanding position in the image? It certainly has the strength to support that position.

I think I would closely compare the SOOC with the processed result and see if the post processing has gone just a smidgeon too far, not in any one area, but rather as a whole?

Am I making any sense?

[Shadowman]

I like it, I think you can capture this scene without HDR though, perhaps a bit more post processing. I would've just posted and see if anyone labeled it HDR.

[TonyW]

My feeling about this is like Frank's. It's a very nice scene with good composition to my eyes, but there is something about it that grates. I wonder whether I would prefer it with less processing - perhaps less contrast, saturation or sharpening. It's hard to know without experimenting though.

[John 2]

Thanks for all of your comments. I guess that it is no surprise that opinions are split. That's HDR to a T. It is over processed almost by definition and all of the software I trialled before I selected SNS, over sharpened the image (I think I still have the results somewhere if anyone is interested). My feelings are similar to Frank's but the reason that I wasn't too sure about the result was more to do with the colour of the sky. I understand your comments Frank and I have vignette the corners and darkened top and bottom. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?

[deetheturk]

John,nice,i like it!

[John 2]

Thanks David. Just an experiment really.

[mknittle]

John, I do like this image. I feel the same way about HDR as you. It is often overdone.

[chauncey]

I guess that it is no surprise that opinions are split.

That, my friend, should not surprise you in the least. Critics never agree on anything.
As a side note...Adams never processed the same image the same way twice...depended on the mood he was in during PP.

[kdoc856]

Hi, John.

First of all, that is a truly lovely landscape, and beautifully composed with a photographer's eye.

HDR is an important tool, and needs no apology, just a judicious application- like a good cologne. I think you've done that.

Frank raises a very interesting point in acknowledging the technique's simultaneous strength and weakness- the raising of the dynamic ranges to a more equal status can both dilute tonal impact, but also create more visual choices that might otherwise be overlooked. It's a matter of focus- the entire feast or the entree? Similar to using DoF to guide the viewers eyes to our (but not necessarily their ) preferred areas of emphasis.

I don't think there can be an inviolable rule here, it needs to be the photographer's conscious choice, not an accidental one, but both approaches can work.

In your shot, I personally like the "feast-like" effect your processing allows- there is much richness throughout that deserves a lingering look. But if the other tack is taken, that of emphasizing the mid-portion of the shot and subduing the fore and background, that also may well be a beautiful shot- just a different one. It's your choice between two legitimate choices.

Sorry for rambling on, but I think you've presented us with an excellent and fascinating example of photographic interpretive choices, and I thank you for it.

[rubyb]

Hi, John.

First of all, that is a truly lovely landscape, and beautifully composed with a photographer's eye.

HDR is an important tool, and needs no apology, just a judicious application- like a good cologne. I think you've done that.

Frank raises a very interesting point in acknowledging the technique's simultaneous strength and weakness- the raising of the dynamic ranges to a more equal status can both dilute tonal impact, but also create more visual choices that might otherwise be overlooked. It's a matter of focus- the entire feast or the entree? Similar to using DoF to guide the viewers eyes to our (but not necessarily their ) preferred areas of emphasis.

I don't think there can be an inviolable rule here, it needs to be the photographer's conscious choice, not an accidental one, but both approaches can work.

In your shot, I personally like the "feast-like" effect your processing allows- there is much richness throughout that deserves a lingering look. But if the other tack is taken, that of emphasizing the mid-portion of the shot and subduing the fore and background, that also may well be a beautiful shot- just a different one. It's your choice between two legitimate choices.

Sorry for rambling on, but I think you've presented us with an excellent and fascinating example of photographic interpretive choices, and I thank you for it.

Fascinating, I'd never thought of any of that. Thanks!

[batmura]

Great work, John. I like the first image better.

[Mike Buckley]

I personally like the "feast-like" effect your processing allows- there is much richness throughout that deserves a lingering look.

I haven't commented on this issue because I was never able to come with the words that would sufficiently express my thinking. Those are the words I would have used if only my fingers could have brought them out of my keyboard.

[Donald]

As a side note...Adams never processed the same image the same way twice...depended on the mood he was in during PP.

I agree absolutely with the sentiment being expressed here. But just for the sake of accuracy and so that people newly coming to a discussion of Adam's techniques and processes don't get confused, he did, of course, only have one chance to get the development of the negative right. It was at the printing stage that variation came in.

As he points in 'Examples: The making of 40 Photographs', he decided how the negative would be processed at the time of capturing the image. He was meticulous in the process of negative development and had an immense knowledge of what impact what developer at which temperature, would have on the negative. He knew when to push and when to pull the development.

Most of us are familiar, I guess, with one of his most famous quotes - "The negative is the score and the print is the performance."

It was when it came to printing that the performance might vary; i.e. he never twice printed the same negative in exactly the same way. Which is why you see a number of versions of 'Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico' with, for example, the sky darker in some than in others.

[Brownbear]

Hi John,

I generally don't like HDR but I find your image very appealing and beautiful. I prefer the first version, and for me it would also work beautifully with just the very top row of the clouds cropped off. I love clouds so I'm not sure why I think that (maybe they look heavy) but when I move the image in the Light box that crop appeals to me very much.

Beautiful image. (I have absolutely no experience in HDR)

[John 2]

Thanks all of you for the continued comments and just as much, for the interesting discussion. Kevin, ramble away. I like the way you describe the scene. My feelings as well at the time although the context was more centred on how nice it would be to get up in the morning and look at that view on a daily basis. The shot was taken from the bank of a canal that is cut into the contour line of the hill I was standing on and so the view in that direction was equally satisfying. Thanks again all.