dude who knows. HDR is completely overrated and rarely used correctly.

 

on cars maybe....

but on landscapes, nice macro and other things (like my watch pix) its awesome.

 

The subject material has nothing to do with it--it's how you use the effect.

It blows my mind how so many members here have a hard-on for HDR. Rarely do I see it done nicely.

 

Thanks for your guys imput. Ill get a Better photo. I like them all, thanks alot!

 

The blurred one looks pretty good.

 

Black and white with a little tint.

 

I tried but the picture want taken is the best lighting.

Never take picutres of cars with the sun light glaring into the reflection of the car. Usually over cast skys and evening shoots are the best.

 

Here's my shot at it:
Bevor:


Nach:

 

there is a problem with the photo. you will never get a "perfect" balance because you took the shot against the light. try this same shot but from the rear of the car. You could also turn the car around the other way and take it from the front. But you want to take the shot with the sun at your back, preferably at sunrise or sunset. Hope this helps

 

^ Exactly my point. The picture has to have atleast the right elements to be tweaked to look good.

 

[QUOTE=Zyclone Z]


here's a little bit of a difference. the lighting on the original shot could be better.just a thought....

 

It looks awesome when done right.

People need to realize that software rendering "HDR" on a single picture is not true HDR and should stop referring to it as that.

Real HDR (High Dynamic Range) photos are multiple shots taken at different exposure settings and later merged and balanced with software.