low intensity HDR Painting ~ Potential?

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Very subtle, nice capture.

[Geoff F]

There is a small rather bright area in the background just outside of the left petal which I would tone down or clone out; otherwise this looks fine to me.

[Manfred M]

HDRI certainly has a place in the photographic repertoire of a photographer. As the dynamic range of modern camera continues to improve (it can easily exceed 14 eV in some of the better cameras), it is not as important as it once was. This implies that the image one was trying to take was beyond the dynamic range of the camera, so several (usually 3 or more) shots need to get a range of images that do not have blow out highlights or areas of lost shadow detail.

In order to get the range of colours to display, they are tone mapped into new colours, so one downside of HDRI is that the colours tend to look incorrect. Depending on the shot, this can be either a good thing or an undesirable affect.

The other issue that one runs into is that a wide tonal range gives us contrast, and this is usually desirable in an image. HDRU tends to have the effect of reducing contrast, so I find that I virtually always have to up the contrast when I use this technique.

So, after being a bit long-winded, Brian, what do you think? Is this an image that needed HDR? Secondly, do the colours do work for you and finally, is the contrast right?

[JBW]

There is a small rather bright area in the background just outside of the left petal which I would tone down or clone out; otherwise this looks fine to me.

I agree about the area but I was attempting to stay away from Gimp which is my cloning software.

[JBW]

HDRI certainly has a place in the photographic repertoire of a photographer. As the dynamic range of modern camera continues to improve (it can easily exceed 14 eV in some of the better cameras), it is not as important as it once was. This implies that the image one was trying to take was beyond the dynamic range of the camera, so several (usually 3 or more) shots need to get a range of images that do not have blow out highlights or areas of lost shadow detail.

In order to get the range of colours to display, they are tone mapped into new colours, so one downside of HDRI is that the colours tend to look incorrect. Depending on the shot, this can be either a good thing or an undesirable affect.

The other issue that one runs into is that a wide tonal range gives us contrast, and this is usually desirable in an image. HDRU tends to have the effect of reducing contrast, so I find that I virtually always have to up the contrast when I use this technique.

So, after being a bit long-winded, Brian, what do you think? Is this an image that needed HDR? Secondly, do the colours do work for you and finally, is the contrast right?

It is an image that needed a way to bring out the textures. This may have worked better in straight(?) HDR but it was taken in HDR Painting which adds another bunch of parameters. Parameters that don't seem to work with purples or whites. The flower stands well apart from the bg so yes I think the contrast (if we are using the term in the same way) is close.
B.

[Manfred M]

It is an image that needed a way to bring out the textures. This may have worked better in straight(?) HDR but it was taken in HDR Painting which adds another bunch of parameters. Parameters that don't seem to work with purples or whites. The flower stands well apart from the bg so yes I think the contrast (if we are using the term in the same way) is close.
B.

In that case, I think you have answered your own question.

The problem I have with many (but certainly not all) in-camera settings is they seem to have been designed to sell the camera by having another function to put in the marketing material, rather than to make meaningful improvements to the image. In part, the problem is primarily that these are output as a jpeg which means you are restricted to fairly subtle editing of the results before significant artifacts are introduced into the image.

I find that outside of studio shooting, I'm simply not a good enough photographer yet to be able to rely 100% on shooting jpeg.

[Wavelength]

Very nice

[JBW]

In that case, I think you have answered your own question.

The problem I have with many (but certainly not all) in-camera settings is they seem to have been designed to sell the camera by having another function to put in the marketing material, rather than to make meaningful improvements to the image. In part, the problem is primarily that these are output as a jpeg which means you are restricted to fairly subtle editing of the results before significant artifacts are introduced into the image.

I find that outside of studio shooting, I'm simply not a good enough photographer yet to be able to rely 100% on shooting jpeg.

I went out today and did some JPEG work with and without HDR but on full manual. I must admit that I am missing the possibilities that RAW shooting offers.