Cannizaro Park Ressurected!

Following feedback on my images on my previous thread, I have taken a different approach, and reworked a couple of the shots without the HDR or other specialized detailing software. I have limited the work to just one single frame (the mid one from the original 5 backets) and restricted myself to using only ACR for raw conversion and then basic Photoshop edits (eg levels, sat / hue) with selections to limit the effects to certain colours or areas.

My intention in doing this see if the results are more in line with other peoples perceptions of what could be a realistic depiction of the scene than the original processings.

The original thread is here link



Here is my original shot No 1 : It is an HDR tone mapping of 4 bracketed frames, using Photomatix Pro. Additional detailing and vibrancy work (including polarising filter effect) have been applied using Sagelight 4.0 and Topaz Detail (a PS plugin) -









Here is the ReWorking of this shot : This has been done from a single frame using only ACR and Photoshop -









Now another one, this time the 3rd from the original thread, that a number of other members have been working on! Here is my original, with the same range of HRD processes used as before -








Now the new version, taking on board the suggestions made, again restricting the tools to ACR and basic PS edits -








As always, I look forward to all of your considered preferences and thoughts, and of course the votes! I'll try and do the others from the series soon.

Many thanks for your time,

Nigel

These scenes don't really do much for me at all. I'm not that into stately home type gardens anyway so any photograph of such is going to have an uphill battle to excite me in the first place.

but as to the processing

Image 1] The new version looks even flatter to me

Image 2] The new version is a slight improvement becuase it looks like the blacks are deeper.

I think the main problem for me with these pics is the lack of depth. they look 2 dimensional. Dare I suggest it would have been better to shoot the scene with a shallow DOF ( no not as narrow as 1.2 - hehe ) so the foreground walls/gate shrub stuff is seperated slightly from the read ground.

HDR does make stuff look 2D

I tend to agree with Smeggy to a large extent. I do prefer the re-worked shots, although to my eyes the overall look of them is still too bright and there is not enough depth to the shadow areas. This does tend to make them look a bit 'flat'. Also, yellow tones seem to dominate too much; this is making the greens in the tree leaves look artificial and also making the gravel and the walls look a bit orange.

I still say this is down to personal preference, I don't think we can say that the processing used is 'wrong', so what I'm saying here is my personal opinion.

I'm not passing comment on the scenes themselves as I think this discussion is primarily about how they've been processed.

Regards
David

It can be helpful to take simultaneous raw+jpeg shots, with the last giving some reference point when processing the raw image. The new versions are better, although no. 2 out of the 4 is a bit flat. And it looks as though you've been doing something to the clouds on the left-hand side of pic 2. It doesn't seem quite right.

I knew I shouldn't have believed that Jessops man telling me the K7 could shoot 3D !

Thanks for the view on it though - I obviously tried to convey a sense of depth with the wide angle, aperture a bit stopped down and trying to get everything within the DOF. Maybe its the odd perspectives, or maybe it needs a lower shooting height with much closer foreground to convey greater depth?

Those composition decisions will affect the sense of depth but I have a suspicion that your processing steps are doing some tone mapping that is stripping out the local tonal gradation and, while bringing out the colours, is losing the feeling of depth. I certainly ran into posterisation very early when re-manipulating the earlier image. Would you be comfortable putting up the original DNG or an 'unprocessed' jpeg somehere?

Does this look any better...




From the 2nd image above.

Too dark for me Algi. This is a sunny day? From the shadows the sun looks pretty high in the sky - it should be a lot brighter methinks.

That would be fine - if anyone wants to use one of the DNGs then send me a PM with an email address.

I should add that my 2nd versions here are not HDRs, but are made from the middle bracket DNG from the 5 shot brackets. The fact is, even this middle exposure (ie meter at 0 position) is beyond the DR of the camera -histogram is blocked up both side extremes. So processing just this one frame is a challenge in itelf.

So, I actually see these scenes as high dynamic range, and technically beyond the camera's sensitivity. That is why I chose the bracketing and HDR technique.

I don't know how you're processing these Nigel, but there's no way they would challenge a camera. They are just standard everyday daylight scenes.

We'll have a look into this collectively and see what people think is a normal shot as it clearly needs a bit of thought.

Why not let us see the original middle exposure shot as a comparison.

OK, here's the mid exposure. Just basic RAW conversion in PDCU, most sliders at default. We can compare this to my very first HDR version (3rd shot down from the top of this thread). I know which one I prefer.

To be honest Nigel, that looks much better. I'd personally darken it slightly, but as it is it's fine.

I know which one I prefer too Nigel and it's the one above that you've just posted. This looks natural, the stones, bricks and trees are the right colours, there is definition between sunlight and shade. The sky is blown out in places, but that's an issue with how the image has been shot - it needed balancing a little better in camera (ND Grad?).

No doubt the processing on the image above could be done more effectively, but not via the HDR route on your first images (IMO).

Regards
David