So here are a couple of shots. The fist one is how I would normally process a file. Using Lightroom 4 , make a few adjustments , check the lens profile and done - 95%+ of my processing is this way - very quick.

The second is the same original file saved 9 times (+/- 0.5 Ev ranging from +2 to -2).

It seemed to me these boats offered a good HDR opportunity. I am still not 100% satisfied with the HDR version - I think in the right hands (ie: someone who knew what they were doing) this could be one of those wow HDR shots.

None the less , just for fun and to encourage others to try I will post my results. Perhaps better results using the bracketing within the camera. Tough with boats and they are on the move constantly. Fun to experiment - what do you think ?

Click on image twice for larger view

Original raw adjusted in LR 4, exported to jpg from LR 4



HDR version - started with unprocessed RAW file, saved 9 times, processed to HDR in Photomatix Pro 4.2 as tiff , re-adjusted in LR 4, exported to jpg



HDR version II

[EmulsionCompulsion]

Has a sort of cross processed feel to it. especially version I

[AussieTrev]

Interesting technic. The first HDR one is the best. Perhaps a little less blue.

[EmulsionCompulsion]

Interesting technic. The first HDR one is the best. Perhaps a little less blue.

yeah tone the teal down a few notches.
unless of course that was the intent..?

[Bob Harris]

I guess I am just a boring kind of guy, I like your original photo Dave, doesn't need any improvement as far as I can see.

[jac]

No doubt you're having fun but I like the first the best

[GeoJerry]

I agree, this looks like a made for HDR image.

However, in this case like Bob and jac I prefer the original. The second is a little too green and saturated for my taste. I wonder if you could improve on the HDR result if you just use three images? Say -2, 0, +2.... or -1.5, 0, +1.5. The image isn't particularly contrasty so I suspect adding all the different exposures isn't adding much to the party, but I've never tried more than 5 so I don't know. Lately I've often been using just one image, taking two copies and then underexposing and overexposing the copies, and then using those 3 as inputs. I've found it often works pretty well (and saves a lot of disk space!). So I'd try that approach too and see what you think. I'd be interested in seeing your results!

When I first started trying HDR I went to Stuckincustoms.com and read up on Trey Ratcliffe's work - he's a big wheel in the HDR world - and Ratcliffe said he rarely used more than 3 images, and never more than 5 (in very high contrast situations). However, as we all know, no rules in photography!

[Jimbo]

Ok Dave you do know what I am going to say. Keep the original! Cheers Bud. JIM

[arnold]

The lighting in the two lower shots is not natural. Keep the original.

[cupic]

As per Jimbo the first is better
not being too critical on your HDR processes

cheers

[Sailor]

Great shot, old buddy. What a beautiful place! I envy you, for sure. I think you got it right the first time - that first shot is gorgeous.

Jer

[Den]

Really like the image Dave. How about something like this

[slowpez]

I have to vote for the original image also Dave. The color just seems so off in the other two. Den's processing is interesting but it has lost the tropical feel of the original. As an aside, it is proven that i usually have no idea what I am talking about and my judgement may be impaired .

[EmulsionCompulsion]

Really like the image Dave. How about something like this

Looks like a storm a-brewin'... I like it, nice work

[daacon]

Has a sort of cross processed feel to it. especially version I

Thanks EC I am not very good at HDR .....

Interesting technic. The first HDR one is the best. Perhaps a little less blue.

Thanks AussieTrev - I think the image has potential for sure.

yeah tone the teal down a few notches.
unless of course that was the intent..?

Not really my intent - I really wanted to old boats to pop.

I guess I am just a boring kind of guy, I like your original photo Dave, doesn't need any improvement as far as I can see.

thanks Bob operator error for sure.