Image two! The extra detail makes her face (and the background) look more interesting. In the first picture, the woman appears to be pretty, but in the second picture, there is a world of stories written on her face.
That's a tough one. The color is a bit better in #2, but the contrast is more natural in #1. I'll have to go with #2 in the end.
I'm not very keen on either, I'm afraid. It seems to me as though you have had to choose whether to make the background or the model look plasticky. I'd rather that neither was.
Image 1. Definitely.
I'm still a fan of image one but wow that foliage pops in image two...
Image two looks more natural Ryan, but I'm no fan of HDR.
I would say 2, if you want to smooth her face I think it's better than starting with one unnaturally smooth and pink.Over all the tones are much better int he second.
I think I'd cheat and use a mixture of the two. In the first shot the background looks more natural but the model looks smudgy and shapeless. In the second one the model looks better as she has more definition but the background looks over touched.So I'd probably do one of each but use the subject from one with the background from the other.
Image #1 looks better, looks warmer on the skin tone.
1. mostly for the lips and skin tone. others have commented that it looks fake or plasticy. to me it just looks like she was out in the sun and is wearing a little lipstick. in 2 the skin looks pasty like she hasn't been outside in months or lives in Seattle.i just got a Nikon D40 and want to start playing around with HDR. some people aren't into HDR because it creates images (sometimes) that aren't realistic. this makes no sense to me. why does an image have to be realistic to be a good image? is Starry Night a crappy paining because it isn't realistic?
Color, contrast and depth are much richer in #2. #1 is kinda flat.I am amazed that you made an HDR image using a human model though. Please tell us how did you kept her from moving between shots?
Post a Comment