rehunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The images are beautiful but I can see what Greg
> is saying, they're almost HDR.
Okay, I think that the two of you are talking about two different issues. Greg was addressing sharpness, which I know is an issue on Flickr. Apparently, I still have not found the correct recipe. I may need to do some experiments.
With respect to HDR, these are definitely not in that realm. True HDR usually involves digitally combining images shot with different exposures. Theoretically, that should produce an image that is faithful to the human eye, but my experience is that most of them look like paintings. In my case, these are just single images edited in Lightroom. I've used the Nik filters on some of them (I am still on the fence as to whether or not I like them) to enhance the details in the plumes and other low contrast areas. That may be what you are referring to with the HDR comment. I also use the shadows tools in Lightroom in an effort to make the dark areas look like a human eye would see them. When you watch a steam engine work at noon time on a sunny day, your eyes will have no trouble resolving all of the moving parts in the running gear. Yes, they are dark, but you can see them just fine. Unfortunately, your camera has a much more difficult time with this. Without some postprocessing.....including the use of shadows tools, a photo of the running gear taken at noon will just be dark and muddy. My goal in post is to get rid of the "mud" and make the image more like what the viewer actually sees. Obviously, the worse the light you are shooting in, the more postprocessing is required and the less "faithful" the image becomes. Cloudy, dark-day images are the hardest to edit and get it right.
/Kevin Madore
