Trey Ratcliff's HDR Photography.

1. DJ
   February 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am

   When you say good HDR, I think of stuff like this guy:

   http://www.johnmilesphotography.com/jmgallery/HDR/

   Images that capture wider range tonality than what is capable with a digital camera (which is generally just five stops, iirc), but still look like a real scene.

   I don't consider the stuff linked here as HDR except for one or two exceptions.... the colors are false, the light is inconsistent... it looks computer generated.

2. Stock Photo Rx
   February 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

   Nice photo, I like the accents

3. DJ is a moron
   February 20th, 2007 at 8:05 am

   Get a life DJ.

4. Jackson2
   November 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

   DJ's not a moron, because when I do a google search on HRD photos, this isn't what I'm looking for.

   Not that it's not a cool photo. But it's not HDR.

5. Clay
   March 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm

   HDR id only a tool to either create an artistic piece as above or extend the range of "realistic" photography. I find your shot quite pleasant.

6. Ben McBeen
   August 31st, 2009 at 12:39 am

   Sorry guys. Not good composition and HDR does nothing to help it. DJ is dead on about the abuses of HDR these days, and this is a prime example. Take a good look at the halo around the wind mill and building. That was never in the original shot at any exposure. Its an artifact from improper processing.

   The Beauty of HDR is allowing the photographer to capture more of the composition. There is substantial loss here. Arguably corruption of the images.

   If you want to chalk this up to artistic license, thats fine. But don't call it great HDR. Call it great art.

7. Heather
   October 14th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   Yes, I think Ratcliff's work is a bit overdone.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT