Tell me what you think....

[Pappy]

Ive been playing with a program (mainly for landscapes) but i figured i would run a few of my race shots through it.

This is the HDR shot

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1107/732634582_adb647b75e_b.jpg


This is the original

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1054/711297995_b563d40023_b.jpg

[Pappy]

And here is a shot run through the program i settled on. I needed something simple because i dont know photoshop..lol

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1431/732050937_9493d6ddfd_b.jpg

[Mxjunkie]

The first picture is very bright and Byrd's quad is bold which grabs ahold of the eye, the orginal is very crisp and clean. I would say it'd be a toss up of which one I like more because the detail in the picture alone is just amazing, I can tell what set up they are running, sticker placement.. I could almost tell you if the tire's had the little nipples on them still! :blah:

[insaneracin2003]

I like the original on the first one,the blue on the Yamis are too bright. nice shots though......:macho

[JOEX]

I like the 'original' looks more natural...

[Pappy]

i like the orginal as well. the picture actually isnt good for the program as there is a process when taking them that lends itself to that particulair program etc. byrds quad really pops on my monitor but the blues look normal here....time to calibrate the monitor again..lol

[Mc. Muffin]

x2 for the original photo. The edited photo is BRIGHT!

[DVXracer]

Originally posted by Mc. Muffin
x2 for the original photo. The edited photo is BRIGHT!

x3

[Robin Hood]

I like the original the best, but if you were putting a picture in a mag, the edited one would be perfect. Stands out a lot and the colors contrast well. Keeps your eyes from just focusing on one point. :D

[gbcap]

i def think the original looks better. the first one looks kinda pasteld out...not as crisp.

[Pappy]

ok, i purposly took some shots this weekend to play more with this program.

here is the original.

i manually metered the light and it rendered the image fine, however the shadows went to dark. in person we can see the range of light but film(digital especially) can not.

[Pappy]

After creating 2 copy images both under exposed/over exposed by 2 stops and applying the program to the image this is the result. detail is back in the shadows just like you would see it in real life

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/763736553_a63a34c7a4_b.jpg

[Pappy]

another set of shots was done to purposley backlight the shadows...this usually spells trashed shot

after creating the series of over/under exposed images and merging them...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1128/763910193_cf9eb6a2d1_b.jpg



the orginal is below and would have been a throw away.

[Mxjunkie]

Those pictures are amazing! :macho

[Pappy]

last one for now


in this shot, the berm is in heavy shadow and the sky is much much brighter. the cameras meter will want to lighten the image, but i shoot full manual so i had it as close as i could get in the original (below)

here is the balanced shot. its supposed to be used primarily on raw format shots and the exposures done in camera and then balanced but i think it might just save a few shots that otherwise would be throw aways. that could be a big help at the races...lol

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1394/763957697_dcaeddc416_b.jpg