HDR for RTF

[ebiggs1]

Some are 'ordinary' aren't they?

[ebiggs1]

"...I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better."

Sometimes a picture is just good the way it is.  I was looking at your gazebo and I keep seeing things.  That is what you want, to keep a person interested.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better."

Sometimes a picture is just good the way it is.  I was looking at your gazebo and I keep seeing things.  That is what you want, to keep a person interested.

---

There's a lot to look at.  Did you notice the person sleeping on the park bench near the right edge?  I just now noticed it.

[ebiggs1]

"There's a lot to look at."

That is why it is interesting.  It is also what makes a good photo.  Keeping a person's interest.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better."

Sometimes a picture is just good the way it is.  I was looking at [Waddizzle's] gazebo and I keep seeing things.  That is what you want, to keep a person interested.

---

I'd rotate it a bit (a half to one degree) clockwise. I wouldn't fool with the lighting or white balance.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better."

Sometimes a picture is just good the way it is.  I was looking at [Waddizzle's] gazebo and I keep seeing things.  That is what you want, to keep a person interested.

---

I'd rotate it a bit (a half to one degree) clockwise. I wouldn't fool with the lighting or white balance.

---

If you mean aligning the base of the gazebo, I was not square to it.  The street goes downhill right to left, too.  There isn't an accurate horizontal line anywhere.  The vertical columns in the gazebo could make good references, but they do not have cleanly defined edges.

But, this is what your change looks like.  It's a minor change, but the columns seem to align with the grid just a little better.

Maybe it is my monitors, but it looks pale on 3 out of 4 monitors,  I bumped the contrast up 10 points in LR.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...I'm still trying to figure out what I could have done better."

Sometimes a picture is just good the way it is.  I was looking at [Waddizzle's] gazebo and I keep seeing things.  That is what you want, to keep a person interested.

---

I'd rotate it a bit (a half to one degree) clockwise. I wouldn't fool with the lighting or white balance.

---

If you mean aligning the base of the gazebo, I was not square to it.  The street goes downhill right to left, too.  There isn't an accurate horizontal line anywhere.  The vertical columns in the gazebo could make good references, but they do not have cleanly defined edges.

But, this is what your change looks like.  It's a minor change, but the columns seem to align with the grid just a little better.

Maybe it is my monitors, but it looks pale on 3 out of 4 monitors,  I bumped the contrast up 10 points in LR.

---

Only when there's a clearly defined horizon (as in Ernie's sunset from earlier today) can I find a horizontal that's useful for alignment. Verticals tend to work much better. In your picture the key vertical is the edge of the building behind the gazebo, which is the first vertical to the right of the Christmas tree. But what told me that the picture needed rotation is that the columns on the right side leaned in more than those on the left.

The contrast is more subjective, but the way you have it now looks fine to me. If you were to have the picture printed, I'd bump the brightness up a tad. But for display on a monitor, I think it's OK as it is.

[Waddizzle]

"Only when there's a clearly defined horizon (as in Ernie's sunset from earlier today) can I find a horizontal that's useful for alignment. Verticals tend to work much better. In your picture the key vertical is the edge of the building behind the gazebo, which is the first vertical to the right of the Christmas tree. But what told me that the picture needed rotation is that the columns on the right side leaned in more than those on the left.

The contrast is more subjective, but the way you have it now looks fine to me. If you were to have the picture printed, I'd bump the brightness up a tad. But for display on a monitor, I think it's OK as it is."

Thanks, for the advice on the rotation and finding the vertical edge.  That edge is shorter than what I would normally use with the Alignment Tool.. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"Only when there's a clearly defined horizon (as in Ernie's sunset from earlier today) can I find a horizontal that's useful for alignment. Verticals tend to work much better. In your picture the key vertical is the edge of the building behind the gazebo, which is the first vertical to the right of the Christmas tree. But what told me that the picture needed rotation is that the columns on the right side leaned in more than those on the left.

The contrast is more subjective, but the way you have it now looks fine to me. If you were to have the picture printed, I'd bump the brightness up a tad. But for display on a monitor, I think it's OK as it is."

Thanks, for the advice on the rotation and finding the vertical edge.  That edge is shorter than what I would normally use with the Alignment Tool.. 

---

Okay, I'm back.  I didn't finish my reply because the phone rang....Facetime with grand-daughter.

When I encounter a straight edge that short, I cannot use the Alignment Tool.  It's strictly arrow keys until the image is a best fit with the overlayed Grid.  Curiously, 0.5 degrees was exactly what it needed.  Hmm.

As for increasing brightness/exposure for printing ... maybe, maybe not.  The image on my monitor [uncalibrated, but histogram isn't saturated] is pretty much how it looked in real life.  It was a pretty dark scene when I walked up to it at 4 AM.  The shadows cast by the gazebo columns created a giant wagon wheel on the ground surrounding the gazebo.  The buildings in the background were lit by carefully placed spots. 

The empty street [4 AM] was lit by mercury vapor street lights.  The Christmas tree was covered with lights, which were barely visible under the gazebo's spotlight shining down from above, but were highly visible in the shadow of the spotlight on the lower right.  There was a lot of stuff buried in shadow, which a single exposure couldn't capture.  I still couldn't capture the entire dynamic range.

At the other end of the scale, there was stuff that was too bright for a good exposure besides streetlights.  The ramp to Burlington Coat factory was washed out.  The bulbs on the Christmas tree were point light sources of saturation, and still look that way, but just not as bad as a single exposure would capture.

The Christmas tree lights are what made me try several exposures for an HDR composite.  The lights at the top of the tree were washed out by the gazebo's spotlight.  The lights at the bottom of the tree were coming out totally saturated because they were point sources beaming out of shadows.

But, the part of the photo that I was trying to capture most faithfully were the shadows cast by the gazebo columns and the way the ground around it was lit up like spokes of a wagon wheel.  If I were to print this image, that facet would get the priority.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Some are 'ordinary' aren't they?

---

This one looks a little soft to me, but we'll overlook that because it's hardly the point. These qualify as good HDR shots because it's not obvious why HDR was needed. The HDR shots that I disparage are those that look artificial but have little or no redeeming artistic value. These do look natural, presumably because the technology made them so.

---

Maybe a little soft(?) gives a nostalgic quality to it.  It is a timeless photo, that could have been shot yesterday or decades ago.