# (Why) do clients like high dr shots?



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

I just sold a couple of documentary shots, the client chose among a rather huge amount of my stock photos what the wild horsies I report on are up to round the year.

While tastes may vary and the client certainly didn't chose shots I like best (emotional content, uniqueness, whatever), I was surprised that _nearly all choices were those of high-dr shots_ taken with Magic Lantern's dual iso, i.e. having 14+ stops of dynamic range.

Among the shots were these two below which were a pita to post-process, and I'm still not really happy. The scenes were noon and high dr, so I cannot really do anything about the "tonemapped" look, but it isn't - just plain Lightroom/ACR. It's only a choice how *how much* you raise shadows, not *if* ... sitting in indoors in winter it's hard to imagine summer can look that glaring and hard though.

*Question:What's your experience - do clients like hdr-ish shots and why?*


----------



## gregorywood (Dec 19, 2014)

I'm often surprised by what people appreciate in a photo and what photos they like more than others. Rarely are they the same as what I like. I think part of it is that we "photographers" take our art seriously and see things in greater detail and from different perspectives. Like you, I'm not always impressed by HDR in general because I've seen so much of it (most of it overdone) that it is generally unappealing unless it's subtle and well done on an otherwise interesting image. I think most people are smitten by it because its so attention-grabbing, especially if they've not been exposed to the style previously.

Greg


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

gregorywood said:


> Like you, I'm not always impressed by HDR in general because I've seen so much of it (most of it overdone) that it is generally unappealing unless it's subtle and well done on an otherwise interesting image.



Feel free to participate in my "post your worst hdr shots" thread  ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23041.0



gregorywood said:


> I think most people are smitten by it because its so attention-grabbing, especially if they've not been exposed to the style previously.



That's my guess, too. It's just that I'm currently getting into the professional "If the client's happy, I'm happy" spirit and away from the "Omg, if other people only see those shots, they have to think I'm a hdr freak". But of course that's why I put these into my stock in the first place, tastes vary, but a € is a €. 

I hope some other photogs share their experiences with customers' tastes and if/when to go "Look at me". On the one hand, it's nice to build a subtle and charming style, but one the other hand, what's the use if nobody notices :-\


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2014)

Is a photograph an accurate depiction of a scene, or is it art and to be manipulated to emphasize a feeling or a concept? Or is it both or is it neither?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Is a photograph an accurate depiction of a scene, or is it art and to be manipulated to emphasize a feeling or a concept? Or is it both or is it neither?



My current "problem" is that shots that accurately depict the scene happen to look manipulated w/o me really aiming for it  ... 

... but unless you're only shooting in controlled light or in the golden hours, you're bound to run into the hdr problem. It looks somewhat out of place on the screen even if I'm positive this is just the way it was and there's no outlandish tone-mapping involved (just fill flash). But the the thread title says, that's just me.


----------



## Freddie (Dec 19, 2014)

*Because they have to compress them to print them.*

Perhaps they want to more easily transfer them to a smaller color space such as CMYK (or sRGB).
In such a case, the flatter the curve, the better. I worked in graphic arts for many years and I would always choose images to be offset printed with the most open shadows and moderate highlights. In the old days, I held all my B&W prints to as short a tone range as I could so the photoengravers couldn't block anything up unless they really tried.
If they are not going to offset print, I have a feeling they just liked the tones. It's sort of becoming a trend to use the extended DR look and they're just following it. The magazines love it and they're struggling to stay alive with as trendy a look as they can manage.


----------



## AE1Pguy (Dec 19, 2014)

I don't understand it either, but it's definitely the case. I sell about ten large fine art landscape prints every year through a recurring art show. Every one I've sold for the last four years or so has been an HDR shot. A few of them were so subtle that even photographers wouldn't have known for sure, but others were pretty heavily tone mapped. And the more aggressive the tone mapping, the more people liked them. My own favorite shot among the last six shows got nary a positive comment. Go figure.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> My own favorite shot among the last six shows got nary a positive comment. Go figure.



This makes it kind of difficult to choose what to publish and post-process, doesn't it? I've got tons of good shots lying around, but this outdoor wildlife stuff needs individual settings on each one, no can do copy/paste settings. If people with money like different things from what I like, maybe I should exchange my taste for a more mainstream one :-o ?


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 19, 2014)

Your clients like what their customers like. Manipulated photos have an *authentic look* to the Instagram/Social Media folks. It make no difference if you are selling a product or seeking a donation, it isn't art, it's commerce.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 22, 2014)

HDR can give an image that is different from what the human eye perceives. This can make the image novel and we are attracted to things that are novel. This is also one of the advantages of B/W photography -- it gives the viewer a view of the subject that is different (novel) from the usual way the subject is viewed. 

It is important to differentiate between novel and good. The two terms do not necessarily go together. 

So the client may, initially, be attracted to the HDR image, but that novelty may wear off once the client sees the image for a longer period of time. 

The key is to make an image that not only initially attracts the client's attention, but can also continue to attract the client's attention after the novelty wears off.


----------



## Tinky (Dec 22, 2014)

I always consider the point of HDR is to make the image look MORE natural, more like the human eye would perceive it. Not to make it obviously distinct or processed.

I'm not a fan of HDR.

Let me rephrase that. I'm not a fan of where I can see HDR.

Usually poorly applied photomatix. Turned up all the way.

Being from a video background my instinct is to get it as right in the camera, this means polarisers and grads are permanent features of the kit. You might use a large french flag, or multiple smaller flags to bat away contrast reducing flare spots Now this isn't HDR, this is controlling the light so that all areas are within the cameras native DR, not magically expanding DR. With a conventional 8-bit camcorder you would be expecting about 10 stops, maybe 11 with a good 10-bit system. 

By taking this amount of control, particularly over sky burn-out, over refelections, your shots will be visually richer, by just applying hdr, any abberations are still there.

for that reason a lot of good hdr passes me by, if other glitches are fixed then it won't occur to me that there is ALSO hdr at work.

Step 1 is always controlling the existing light as far as you can, step 2 is painting with light as far as you are able.

This crunches highlights, lifts shadows, and to me, is more desirable than an hdr mode. I annoy producers every working day by setting up lighting for interviews, a reflector here, sone scrim there. But they and the cluents love the results.

I think tat once you start thinking about the scene rather than the camera you are taking more care in any case, and the shot will be markedly improved for that reason.

Personally I'm finding a softer look is de-rigeur just now, the dxo film-look or vsco look. Slightly desaturated, slightly grainy. Slightly warm. Not quite lomo.

But the mantra would always be, get it right going into the camera. Apply the effects later.

Clients won't always know why something is better (and I'm usually wary of producers or clients who have picked up a technical phrase and over-use it) but they will generally know it is better. so tats what I work towards. HDR can be put in later on, but its very hard to take out if its in your source material.


----------



## RobertG. (Dec 23, 2014)

Hi, in my limited experience scenes with a high dynamic range are chosen more often than rather flat ones. High contrasts as well as clear basic colors like blue, green, red & yellow grab faster and more easily the attention of the viewer. Well done HDR shots can not easily be reproduced by an amateur, so the appreciation of the technical quality might play a role too.

This year my most successful client pictures were these two:











These are not tone mapped HDR but they show a pretty high dynamic range nontheless. For the first one just a single frame was shot, for the 2nd one two shots blended together (the mountain range in the background was blended in because of too much lens flare in the original scene). Both were shot with grad ND filters and required a lot of post processing, including heavy use of digital grad ND filters.

Best regards, Robert


----------



## Tinky (Dec 23, 2014)

This was the last HDR image I took, 2 exposures, tone-mapped, I was shooting straight into the sun so all the standing stones were rendered in silhouette, quite pleased with how it worked out. It would not have been possible with a conventional shot, but I don't think looks all that objectionable, it is like the scene as I recall it, which is usually my intention.

Was taken on a work trip to the Isle of Lewis, this is the largest group of standing stones at Calanais.

Taken with an EOS M and 22mm EF-m lens @ f8.


----------



## candc (Dec 23, 2014)

Well i don't like overdone hdr either but I can understand why your client picked those 2 shots, they are great images with a lot of impact.

p.s. I put ml on my 6d and I am trying to figure out the best way to use dual iso. For conditions like this do you want to use say "100 800" or "800 100"? Then if its mostly a dark scene with some bright spots do you do the opposite?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 23, 2014)

I've been doing more real estate lately and they've always chosen the photos with the widest DR for their key shots. Being able to see out the window and inside the home is either an HDR job or requires flash, both of which require extra work to look good.

In the end, clients just like good work and they inadvertently choose the better photos.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 23, 2014)

Let's not confuse "scene dr" and "post-processing compression & contrast" here:



RobertG. said:


> Hi, in my limited experience scenes with a high dynamic range are chosen more often than rather flat ones.



Nice shots, esp. since you managed *not to make them look flat*, and imho that's what good hdr post-processing is about and what makes it so difficult - it still looks natural, somehow...



Tinky said:


> Was taken on a work trip to the Isle of Lewis, this is the largest group of standing stones at Calanais.



... and so does this, because I can just imagine with the sun so low that I could just (barely) see the texture on the stones...



RLPhoto said:


> Being able to see out the window and inside the home is either an HDR job or requires flash, both of which require extra work to look good.



... however, very high compression of a high dr scene inadvertently looks artificial to *me*. Good thing: with indoors scenes, it doesn't really matter. And obviously I'm very prone to stumble upon this, I even don't really like my own shots even though clients like them :-o. 

In this indoors example, my first thought is that it's a set on a sound stage and the outdoors scene is just a painting set behind the window like a bluescreen effect. But again, that's just me, and I do it just the same way.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Let's not confuse "scene dr" and "post-processing compression & contrast" here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't change the fact that even if that scenes DR was made possible by blue screen or by painting, the actors and scene are still lit. I find that clients love lit scenes even though the majority of them don't know why it looks good.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 24, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It doesn't change the fact that even if that scenes DR was made possible by blue screen or by painting, the actors and scene are still lit. I find that clients love lit scenes even though the majority of them don't know why it looks good.



Don't get defensive, I think you are missing Marsu's point, he is photographing a wide dynamic range scene and maintaining dynamic range in the image, he has blacks and dark shadows and blown whites, he is using the output mediums DR capabilities and his point is that customers seem to be drawn to that. You are not using the output mediums DR capabilities, you might have photographed a scene with more outright DR than his, but your reproduction has no real blacks or shadows and no whites apart from a suspiciously looking close to blown door, whereas the scene suggests it should have shadows and bright highlights. The end result is a comical caricature which, though unrelated to this thread, is exacerbated by the extreme perspective corrections, or that it has a sloped ceiling which you have failed to accurately portray, thereby making the angle of the molding look like it is from a set on an Alice in Wonderland movie. 

Of course you might get paid for it, and your clients might be too image illiterate to understand how bad it is, however, your image is not an example of what Marsu was talking about, not close.


----------



## Omni Images (Dec 24, 2014)

Maybe why Jason Lanier is so popular http://www.jasonlanier.com/
I do admire his shots ... some of them.
Not his landscapes.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You are not using the output mediums DR capabilities, you might have photographed a scene with more outright DR than his, but your reproduction has no real blacks or shadows and no whites apart from a suspiciously looking close to blown door, whereas the scene suggests it should have shadows and bright highlights.



Interesting analysis, the "odd angle" white door and a bit dimmer outside right next to it is just the tonemapping inversion that makes my mind suspicious of a scene and results in that "hdr" look. But I often find it hard to pinpoint the exact cause esp. with my own shots.

I can imagine RL's shot might be just fine with clients - I'd certainly buy it for my hotel brochure. But in this case, it isn't hard to see why - it looks "professional" with the golden tones, mapped lighting and the linear, perspective-corrected ceiling which always seems "pro" as it's the opposite from "took this with my wide-angle iphone".

Btw I sometimes try "single shot hdr" on my high-dr wildlife scenes. Here are two exmples, one straight out of Lightroom above, one with "single shot hdr" below.











You probably have to switch them in a picture viewer to see the difference  but the tonemapped one has the darker trees in front of the more impressive sky (always a clear indication for hdr) and flattened shadows on the ground. To me, the "snappier" tonemapped version looked artificial, it *is* a scene with fog after all, so I dumped it.

Morale of the story: You cannot change a scene's lighting in post. Btw don't look at the corner sharpness, it's only taken with the old 17-40L :->


----------



## candyman (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> ...................
> Btw I sometimes try "single shot hdr" on my high-dr wildlife scenes. Here are two exmples, one straight out of Lightroom above, one with "single shot hdr" below.
> 
> ...............




Somehow it looks like the upper photo is single-shot hdr and the photo below the straight out of LR.
It seems there is more DR in the upper photo....not?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

candyman said:


> Somehow it looks like the upper photo is single-shot hdr and the photo below the straight out of LR.
> It seems there is more DR in the upper photo....not?



Gotcha! It's just the way I wrote, they - but with *less* hdr effect it *looks* like there is more dr in the scene because the shadows aren't flattened. Look at the grass patch on the right side - after the tonemapping, the constrast is gone and it look duller.

This is the a very difficult post-processing task - make a high dr *scene* look neither harsh nor flat on the *output* device. It's very easy to overstep on either side, running into clipping or tone inversion (the infamous "hdr from hell" look). In my experience, doing too many locals and post-processing on and on tends to make it worse btw, as un-natural lighting is bound to creep in. 

Note: Superheroes always get it right in camera, while villains resort to tricky hdr tonemapping :->


----------



## candyman (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow it looks like the upper photo is single-shot hdr and the photo below the straight out of LR.
> ...




It surprised me. 
So, do you do everything always by hand in step-by-step or....do you have presets defined to give you a start and folow by adjusting the post-processing with just little tweaks (not every scene is the same)? I reckon that one can caught up on one photo with post-processing and get totally lost. On the other hand, like with painting, you think it is finished and you step away but looking back again you feel the need to adjust again. At least it happened to me a few times. 


Without anit-hero, no superhero  
I thought to bring some balance here. I saw Don is on super-hero vacation too.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

candyman said:


> So, do you do everything always by hand in step-by-step or....do you have presets defined to give you a start and folow by adjusting the post-processing with just little tweaks (not every scene is the same)?



Unfortunately, with outdoor wildlife, I cannot copy/paste settings but need to touch every shot. I apply a basic LR setting (with highlights pulled down to see how far they go), then adjust the basic sliders and tone curve if need be. But now that I have a certain "style" in mind - however one may like it - it's much quicker than just post-processing around in the dark to whatever end "looks best". 

And you're correct, over-postprocessing is worse than none at all, "keep it simple" looks best in natural scenes.

The biggest gain in experience over the years for me is being able to see what needs to be done in-camera on the scene, and what can be "fixed" in post and with what amount of work. This speeds post-processing up as you just have a go at problems that are easy to improve, and leave the "look at every pixel in PS" method to very few select shots you publish on the front page.



candyman said:


> Without anit-hero, no superhero



Isn't that from the scene when Batman bangs the Joker's head on the table  ? Watch out, villains!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't change the fact that even if that scenes DR was made possible by blue screen or by painting, the actors and scene are still lit. I find that clients love lit scenes even though the majority of them don't know why it looks good.
> ...


Wow I find it flattering that you would say something as how bad my image is when you still have no portfolio to show my very opinionated friend. But please continue to do so as someone who doesn't understand what he reads right in front of him.

My point was clients like high DR shots, either from HDR, Flash or another method. Marsu42 leans more towards processing a single frame, I lean towards flash to get my balance and you however don't lean to anything since you have no real images to share.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Marsu42 leans more towards processing a single frame, I lean towards flash to get my balance



Fyi: I'd do the same as you do, probably have multiple low-powered flashes lying around for indoor scenes. Then capture/post-process to 1/2ev or even 1/3ev spacing, then fuse. "Over-doing" bracketing is definitely "worth it" for this indoor stuff, as a somewhat artificial look can be considered "clean" or "radiant". 

With my shots, it's just that 99% of the time one horsie is in the scene  so no can do with reflectors or multiple flashes, unless the herd is resting. That's why I have to go for a single high-dr exposure with fill flash, avoiding drop shadows as far as I can.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 leans more towards processing a single frame, I lean towards flash to get my balance
> ...


I concur for outdoor scenes, sometimes we just can't setup a flash and need to all the DR we can get and for indoors we can light to our hearts content to overcome DR issues so clients can buy our images either way.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 24, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Wow I find it flattering that you would say something as how bad my image is when you still have no portfolio to show my very opinionated friend. But please continue to do so as someone who doesn't understand what he reads right in front of him.
> 
> My point was clients like high DR shots, either from HDR, Flash or another method. Marsu42 leans more towards processing a single frame, I lean towards flash to get my balance and you however don't lean to anything since you have no real images to share.



You are most welcome, it is after all a pretty 'noteworthy' image so I felt a comment relevant. My ability, or not, to create images doesn't alter the fact that your illustrative image is a horrible example of what Marsu was pointing out.

I understood your point, I just thought your example image only illustrated your lack of real estate shooting/post processing skill and wasn't a good addition to the thread. Marsu is talking very nuanced differences in shadow detail and tonality, you come in with a sledgehammer of an image illustrating everything everybody hates about "HDR" along with at least one other major issue, whilst you tout it as an example of _"clients just like good work and they inadvertently choose the better photos." _ 

Don't you see the disconnect between what you are saying and what you are showing?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wow I find it flattering that you would say something as how bad my image is when you still have no portfolio to show my very opinionated friend. But please continue to do so as someone who doesn't understand what he reads right in front of him.
> ...


I find a huge disconnect between your opinions and your portfolio dear sir. Thus I put your opinion rightfully where it belongs, in the garbage bin with all the other refuse.

You missed the point of the example.

1. Clients like High DR shots, some don't know why, others do.
2. High DR shots can be done like Marsu42 or How I did them.
3. Either way, we get paid in the end of the day, client is happy.

Your comments are starting to sound like the clatter of a toolbox.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You are not using the output mediums DR capabilities, you might have photographed a scene with more outright DR than his, but your reproduction has no real blacks or shadows and no whites apart from a suspiciously looking close to blown door, whereas the scene suggests it should have shadows and bright highlights.
> ...



Love the photos Marsu42.

I wish I can view them without the text


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I wish I can view them without the text



A website and purchase options for these beautiful high-res 16bit ~20mp versions of these unique pictures are developed as we speak . Currently I only have a stock slideshow page for dedicated clients to chose from.

It's simply that if you're putting lots of unpaid time into this, waring down your precious gear you're somehow reluctant to give them away for free esp. in 3rd party forums. Unfortunately, in times of the Internet once a reasonable resolution is online, your shots are gone for good. And while it's generally fun being outdoors, standing around all night in the middle of nowhere is "work".

I'm trying to find a compromise between showing public watermarked 256 color thumbnails as above and giving folks a good impression of the work w/o too much paranoia. You cannot really cover both angles, because of course high-res true-color versions of these are more impressive, and thus will generate more attraction.


----------



## KrisK (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Btw I sometimes try "single shot hdr" on my high-dr wildlife scenes. Here are two exmples, one straight out of Lightroom above, one with "single shot hdr" below.



I think I got lost in the wording: you're saying to TOP image is the 'original', and the BOTTOM is LR's one-shot HDR?

(Asking because the bottom image seems to have less detail, which I always thought was the primary advantage of HDR.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

KrisK said:


> I think I got lost in the wording: you're saying to TOP image is the 'original', and the BOTTOM is LR's one-shot HDR?



Yup.



KrisK said:


> (Asking because the bottom image seems to have less detail, which I always thought was the primary advantage of HDR.)



You're confusing a lot of things here, but it's not uncommon, if that's a relief  ... you have to tell apart
1. high dr of the *input* scene that's more than your sensor can take in a single shot
2. dr out the *output* device that requires *tonemapping/fusing* to stuff the source data into it

So if you use a hdr program to merge brackets into one shot to prevent clipping, yes, that preserves shadow/highlight details. But at the some time you're *compressing* the bit depth of the data, i.e. loosing detail. Can't have your cake and eat it!

The art of good hdr to compress a scene w/o making it look flat, and often a program like photomatrix won't succeeed at that and you need to do it yourself in lightroom with local edits where you want them (see examples above, one manually done by me in LR, one run through a "dumb" hdr software). The software is good at averaging shadows & highlights, but it cannot tell how you want the result to look.

Maybe I should start writing a book (or at least a tutorial on my site): "Marsu42 on hdr"


----------



## applecider (Dec 24, 2014)

Tinky, I was looking at your pic of "largest group of standing stones at Calanais" and thought it looked nice but I was having a hard time getting why people were so high on the 22mm lens then browsing on an iPad hit the link to the picture and have to say that the difference between what CR lets one post and what was linked was pretty stark. Point being look at the higher resolution source to appreciate great images. Yours qualifies as do most of the others in this thread.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 25, 2014)

HDR is a great method to get the dynamic range close to what the photography sees in the setting. I prefer to use HDR to develop the image as I pictured it when shot. Personally, I don't like over cooked images. Everybody has their own distinctive tastes. I wonder how Ansil Adams would have weighed in on this- he did do some radical B&W.



Wildcat Falls Yosemite National Park © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Tinky (Dec 25, 2014)

applecider said:


> Tinky, I was looking at your pic of "largest group of standing stones at Calanais" and thought it looked nice but I was having a hard time getting why people were so high on the 22mm lens then browsing on an iPad hit the link to the picture and have to say that the difference between what CR lets one post and what was linked was pretty stark. Point being look at the higher resolution source to appreciate great images. Yours qualifies as do most of the others in this thread.



Thank you very much, very nice feedback to receive. The EF-m 22mm is a little belter, and Lewis is other-worldly beautiful. I was just kind of there with a camera.

Happy Holidays x


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 25, 2014)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> Hi Keith,
> I have to say it man, that is an exceptional image of the falls there.
> I was very lucky in the 70's to study under one of Japans Master water-colour and ink Artists, for a few short weeks.
> I think you knocked it right out of the park with this one.
> Awesome dude...



Thanks


----------



## gwflauto (Dec 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Maybe I should start writing a book (or at least a tutorial on my site): "Marsu42 on hdr"



I would appreciate such a book or a good tutorial on hdr from you.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Not impressed one bit my pompous friend. Even you should know better that its not the million dollar homes that are hard to shoot, it's the mid/low range homes that are. I could shoot that home with a g15 and get results like that. 

How about small homes on million dollar property? Because that's what that frame was from, a prefab home and that is a much much harder thing to do than your luxurious space to put lighting and show a the wonderful views with little resistance, with a room that requires virtually no prep. Not even the same thing.

BTW, I think your image is a bit on the cold side and not as warm and inviting as my image taken in a place nowhere near the space like yours. 

I call that disappointing and a home like that should take my breath away but not by that photo. I also think it's really really neat that my photo still looks darn nice from a 100k prefab, next to your 6x6 rafter running, custom built probably multi-million dollar home. Which I do shoot for essex properties, but I also shoot the smaller homes, which wasn't why I posted the image here in the first place.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 25, 2014)

gwflauto said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I should start writing a book (or at least a tutorial on my site): "Marsu42 on hdr"
> ...



Thanks for motivating me, I'll put it on my (unfortunately rather long) to do list 

And with all x-mas compliments having been exchanged between the CR regulars, I'll call it a day before the threads spirals down into another "post your best hdr shots" list. But my question was answered to my satisfaction, so another worthwhile day ends in CR land


----------

