Thanks for the comments, this isn't HDR just 2 versions processed in lightroom one for the sky and one for the hay. These then layer masked in with a gradient.

I like the shot. Good detail & the composition works well.

I can see why it 'appears' to look like an HDR shot.

There's plenty of contrast further into the scene. The sunlight has resulted in a definate light/dark side to each bale and they cast also shadows onto the field.

When you look at the bale in the foreground this doesn't seem to be the case - similar to how HDR shots 'correctly' expose (but often flatten & reduce contrast) by replacing darker shadows with brighter areas for the sake of keeping detail. Did you brighten up the left hand round face of the nearest bale ?

You say you used a gradient.....I'm guessing dark at the top to boost the sky ? There's no way I can tell for sure but I'm wondering if the light part of the gradient at the bottom of the shot is what's giving it that less contrasty / shadowless look.

Re processed version:



There was very little shadow at the base of the bale in the foreground on the day.

I had the sky processed version at the top part and the gradient on the layer mask to filter it in.

New version is one version in LR with the gradient done in LR.

Much prefer the second the version, the first one,the front bale was too in your face, the new version, seems more natural. Screams out Mono to me, but I am having a Mono phase xx

I too prefer the second editing. There seems to be less of a haloing effect that made the first rendition appear to be an HDR. I sometimes get that look by adding too much Clarity & Vibrance in the Raw software. Still, it's a great shot with super detail and a wonderful sky. I like the composition with the bale offset to the left with the background bales adding depth.

I actually prefer the one in the first post

I prefer the sky in the first shot but the ground appears more natural in the second.

Looking at the weather and the scene in the photograph - what did the original (straight out of the camera) lack that led you to go down the route of two exposures followed by gradients, processing etc ?

Same as Phil - but I still think the front bale looks not quite right, and flat, or inverse embossed (which probably only makes sense to me!)

xx

I like things about both edits.
I would also be interested to see this in mono.

I agree with Zoundz that there is something not quite right about that bale. I wonder if its because the perspective makes it look a little skewed.
Overall I'm not sure the balance in this picture works for me. I think it would have worked better with less field.

Ok as you should all know by now I speak my mind without hopefully upsetting a member too much. I try and give an honest opinion every time, even if I like a picture or not. To me there is absolutely no point in saying one thing and thinking another, so here goes.




To me the whole of both pictures look unreal and messed about with too much, both images look over saturated. If I were to take the same picture I would concentrate more in getting it correct in the camera first and not rely so much on editing. I would have preferred to foremost bale to be a little further away as it dominates the whole scene. Possibly done in landscape as against portrait mode reducing the amount of sky would look better with more of the field showing. A wider picture without the top row of clouds would be my choice. Possibly a hedge line on on side would give the necessary depth without relying on the hay bales to do the job.


Having said that I know Stanokella takes some fantastic photos, as he has posted in the past which I really like.

Sorry Stanokella to be a little harsh