River View

All looks to bright to me.

And way too small to appreciate properly. I know the forum sadly still insists on reducing images to 800px, but if you host it at something like 1600px then we can at least click on the images to see it at a decent size.

+1

I don't have a problem with the technique per se - but many folks seem to use it to deliberately generate results that are not realistic.

Andrew

Trouble is we use HDR wrongly as a term. HDR is useful if you actually need HDR but of course does tone-mapping in the process which creates unrealistic effects unless you are careful. Then some folks like the artificial tone-mapped effect and reproduce that in a normal dynamic range photo and call it HDR. So we never know when someone is trying to reproduce a high dynamic range scene or trying to create an artistic effect.

gggrrrrrr

I would say the one thing this forum lacks is artistry. I'm guilty of this myself.
Lots of great technique and lovely realistic representations everywhere, but very little real pizzazz!
So bring on the shocking 'HDRs' the photo manipulations, the graphic and illustrative work - maybe we need a new category for it
The OPs image would be considered very natural in this new category.

Its true that on this forum 'natural' is usually hailed as an aim in itself, in that if something is not seen as 'natural' then the photo 'doesn't work for me'.

I too dislike the heavily cooked, grunge style of HDR, with its artificially elevated shadows and over-detailing. But I do feel that when HDR is used naturally (ie simply to compress visible DR to an extent that reproduces the eyes own ability) it is also dismissed unfairly. This I believe is because of a long term conditioning to traditional photographic processes and their particular presentation of the world.

May I suggest you convert the file to sRGB it looks like it is Adobe RGB.

John

Will that make any difference to what we can all see on screen?

Yes it can make a difference, depending on how the browser deals with it. The internet is an sRGB environment so if we want our images to look right on all devices that's the way to present them.

I think it is reasonable to assume that a general goal of photography is to reproduce images realistically and naturally (although we all have different interpretations of that). Obviously there is nothing wrong with a different goal if the intention is to produce something deliberately different to the original, but then it becomes difficult to offer comment much more helpful than 'I like it' or 'I don't'.

When that is achieved I would agree that HDR is an enhancement and is potentially improving the image. Getting the tone mapping right for the image to actually still look natural seems to be quite hard though.

Not from me. My objection is not to the principle but the execution which (usually) isn't quite good enough.

That criticism is only of course for photos attempting to render a natural look. If the intention is to produce art and tone mapping is part of that process then I have no criticism - but still may not like the end result.

I think if you are using Firefox or (maybe) Chrome the image is likely to render fine from a different colour space, but for many other browsers sRGB will be incorrectly assumed.

So, exactly as John says, it is always better to use sRGB for web images as otherwise some folks won't see the correct colour rendition.