which do you like better?

[crazzy88ss]

Ok, so I'm trying not to get 100% sucked into HDR, and I'm trying to just take single pictures and figure out how to edit them. But the problem is, I see my HDR images, and then my edited images, and can't help but thinking the HDR is so much better.

So, which one do you guys like better? Any suggestions? Etc.

Original Image (RAW converted to JPG)

Edited with Aperture (I tried my best. If you think you can do better, which you probably can, see the end of my post)*

Single RAW Tone Mapped with Photomatix.

5 RAW exposures combined into HDR with Photomatix.

* If you think you can do better using Photoshop, or what ever, then please show me! I challenge all of you to show me what you can do. Here is the original RAW file: http://crazzy88ss.statichost.co.uk/p/lakeraw.NEF

[Aperture]

First is flat,

Second lacks contrast

Third lacks colour

Fourth is a balance of all the above things gone right.

[teriba]

First is flat,

Second lacks contrast

Third is perfect

Fourth is oversaturated

Fixed.

[Impact]

Fourth is way too oversaturated and 1 + 2 don't have enough contrast/color. Three is perfect!

[Tech Star]

I like the third one. :)

[SnowRanger13]

the 3rd looks the best. I really like 4th as well but it's too, fake?

[I8PP]

Last one you can make out the shifting of clouds (obvious). #3 is the best one of the bunch.

[metro]

I challenge you to blend manual exposures that are bracketed, or at least use a graduated neutral density filter. The sky is completely blown out and pretty much jacked. There isn't much to work with to be perfectly honest. I was able to somewhat save the image but the sky is just too blown out to bother with it. Sorry, that's just how it is.

A circular polarizer may have helped this image out too, but even then the sky is just too bright compared to the foreground. If the clouds were moving, then a bracketed set of images would have shown blurring in the clouds which could look good or bad depending on how fast they were moving.

[crazzy88ss]

The 4th image is 5 bracket manual exposures... Which is why there's the clouds look the way they do.

[Matrix XII]

I like the tone mapped one the best, really has some good contrast.

[metro]

The 4th image is 5 bracket manual exposures... Which is why there's the clouds look the way they do.

I really think you should invest in some GND filters. Meter the sky and the foreground, pick the right filter for the difference in lighting, and shoot away. You might blur the clouds a little bit depending on how it's done, but it's the best way to get the most natural exposure that doesn't looked heavily altered.

If you want to see what a GND filter can do, take a look at the work of Marc Adamus. Seriously, you will never want to use HDR again because you won't have to. :)

[crazzy88ss]

So basically the GND filters allow you to get a proper exposure on the whole image in one shot?

[giga Veteran]

So basically the GND filters allow you to get a proper exposure on the whole image in one shot?

Yes. A camera's dynamic is very limited compared to the human eye--if you did an evaluated metering for the scene, it would be thrown off by the very bright sky. A CPL or GND helps a lot for this.

By the way, really nice photo. If the sky wasn't blown out it would have been 100% perfect ;)

[Sir Topham Hatt]

The 3rd one is good.

The 1st looks too plain.

The 2nd looks like a darker version of number 1.

Number 3 is good

Number 4 is too saturated.

Which one looks closest to what it was like on the day? The 1st one looks like a nice plain summers day, the 2nd one looks like it is about to rain :s But then the third one, I would have madea bit brighter and a bit more contrast to bring the colours out a little.

This last one just above though is great - the sky is a little bright but the green grass is good.

Regarding GND filters - is there any particular one I should be going for?

[giga Veteran]

GND - Cokin, Lee

CPL - Hoya Pro1, B+W, Heliopan

[metro]

GND - Cokin, Lee

CPL - Hoya Pro1, B+W, Heliopan

Or if you can afford them, filters by Singh-Ray. Lee makes good filters. I have even been told the Hi-tech ones are nice but the Singh-Ray filters are argued as being the most neutral in color, the Cokin ones being the worst in terms of neutrality.

[crazzy88ss]

So looking at these filters, it seems the best way is to get the square ones, right? That way you can easily move it around. I read some reviews from some ppl who said it's easier/more convenient to hand hold them against the lens. What's your thoughts on that vs getting the proper attachments?

[metro]

So looking at these filters, it seems the best way is to get the square ones, right? That way you can easily move it around. I read some reviews from some ppl who said it's easier/more convenient to hand hold them against the lens. What's your thoughts on that vs getting the proper attachments?

All you have to do is obtain the Cokin P filter holder, and the step up rings for the diameter of the lenses you want to use. Any P sized filter made by Cokin, Lee, Singh-Ray, Hi-Tech, or Tiffen will fit in the holder. I believe the holder can accommodate up to 3 different filters. You can also rotate the holder around the ring for diagonal positioning if you need to depending on the scene.

If you hand hold the filter, you could possibly damage the effect of the graduation by moving it. The holder will keep the filter in place but allow you to slide them into position for the effect.