Both photos were originally .jpg files from 2004, I believe that was the year.  

At the time I had little knowledge of enhancing the detail or detail of edges of photos.  Now, I see images which are not HDR but have that extreme look I associate with overdone.  Why? Edges are enhanced too much for me and the quality of the image is changed from a photo to something else, more painted and outlined for effect. Sure, some photos I see with that sort of post work handled with discretion are truly wonderful and very pleasing to these eyes. Others..well, lets say a nicely corrected photo would be more pleasing to me.

Both photos are saturated in color more than I normally do but at the approximate same amounts. The difference is detail enhancement.  **This first one uses high pass filter blended with overlay and opacity dropped to about 30%.
**
The second image is enhanced with a software made to do that as gently or as garishly as one desires.   The detail enhancement was nearer the low end of the slider in the software.

Please let me know which you prefer and why.  Ok?

These are not "finished" products. I took the images from storage and did what is mentioned above, that is pretty much it.    Thanks for any comments.        Tom.

Photos taken in upper mid Ohio, USA, shot as .jpg.

This second image is enhanced with a software made to do that as gently or as garishly as one desires.   The detail enhancement was nearer the low end of the slider in the software.

Now posted, the differences are slighter than I thought. Maybe you can see a difference.

Ok, since the two above are fairly close, here is one I consider a bit overdone. Do you have a thought on that?   Thanks.       Tom.

I think the sharpness/detail in the second one is better, although it also seems to have brought out the noise in the sky slightly... maybe use the second method but mask out the bits you don't need sharpening? I agree the third one may be a little OTT with the colours..
Adam

I occasionally use a "Semi" HDR effect but in a subtle way and often selectively on part of an image.In my humble opinion HDR tends to ruin the sky and make the image unreal.

If I am doing my semi HDR effect I duplicate the image layer and after I do adjustments I erase the sky so the original underneath sky shows thru.

You can get some nice boosts to an image by duplicating the image layer and changing the blending mode to things like colour dodge...colour burn or soft light...you have to reduce the opacity way down to get an interesting but subtle effect.

Eddie

Here is my novice words Tom.
2nd image sky and green combined with a 3rd buildings.

You right about HDR over done images. Some member use it so wise others go nuts and the final image absolutely out of this world. I do like HDR postworked images when I looking at a picture and I hardly see it is actually run through on HDR. Still makes me belive I can "maybe" see the landscape with those colors and tones and textures. oops going side way, sorry Tom.

seeya  Tunde

Tom,

The first 2 are pretty close, but you really start to see the noise and off color shadows in the 3rd one.  The vegatation and grass in the foreground are all "muddled" and the barns white paint has now become full of multi-colored noise.  Even the shadow detail along the roof/gutter of the barn is a greenish tint.

Most people are NOT using the true HDR technique where you take a multiple bracket of exposures and then combined them later for the best dynamic range. A plugin like LucisArts or Topaz Adjust is being used to create a pseudo HDR or TONEMAP effect.  Yes, it is way overdone most of the time and being applied to just about any type of image these days. Unfortunately, its the new fad or  "IN THING" in photography at the moment and people seem to be under the impression it can turn a bad...not so interesting shot... into something spectaular.

I got caught up in it all as well, but now I apply the effect more subtlely and in various degrees...using a layer mask to selectively choose areas of an image. I still use the high pass filter on many images as well and have also been experimenting with SMART sharpening in Photoshop.

Just my 2 cents and some pocket lint.
Joe

Joe, I would say not hanging with a fad does not mean you have missed the train.   As mentioned above, subtle changes can work wonders and be very pleasing.  I need to work more with masks and develop skills there and with various blending methods.

I have found the Smart Sharpen in Photoshop™ works well in small does and it is quite easy to avoid halo effects with it.  On some images, highpass run down to perhaps 28% or so opacity followed with Smart Sharpen works well,  just so the sharpen is not set to do too much.  I do no sharpening in camera. 
All comments are appreciated.      Tom.

hurry and catch up .......square images is the new fad
what next i wonder? :)

I don't see detail enhancement. OK the smaller details are more contrasty in the third image but they are all there in the first image, and to me, more how I would see them in real life. 
What I dislike the most of all though is the colour changes.  I suspect I would prefer the colours of the original image to any of these artificial ones.
Could you perhaps do a comparison by using the enhancement but keeping the colours the same as the original from the camera ?

I use tone mapping on everything tone mapping is a HDR but without 3 images.. I have had images where its way over done.. mainly because it was new and i went over kill lol but i think im using it sparing now.. i have in mind less is best for example this image.. but then again i look at so much HDR stuff i might be numb to it being over done and this one still might be and i dont know it lol

Actually i liked the original. I dont think there is that much dynamic range in the image due to the overcast sky, so probably it wont benefit that much from exposure blending/tone mapping. But that does not mean you cant use it anyway for artistic reasons.

I dont know what software you are using for HDR, but if it is Photomatix then also try using the Tone compressor and the exosure blender.
Both offer more natural results without the colour casts associated with tone mapping. I think the colours that you see in tone mapped images can look very unrealistic and you need to play around with the saturation sliders (keep them low) before you get something more 'real'. They also tend to rob sharpness.

The tone compressor is great for keeping depth in the shadow areas while still achieving a higher dynamic range then one exposure does. I really like the tone compressor in Photomatix actually. The exposure blender is very good too. I think sharpening up a bit in PS afterwards is better than trying to compensate with the detail enhancements, as Adam says it just tends to add noise.

Hand blended exposures in PS are something that i have read about but so far have not had the patience (and probably skill) to attempt.  I found this quite interesting article the other day with examples of how this guy compares his hand blending technique with Photomatix. He swears by the hand blending technique even though he admits it takes a lot of patience. Check it out..

http://www.outdoorexposurephoto.com/photoblog/date/2009/02/

Regards.. Shaun

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/rrfilelock/download.php?fileid=37092&key=9931

The beauty salon shot beats "Legally Blond" for humor!  This is a great shot.

Ok, for those with the know how and the software, please take a shot at the barn/silo original image and post it with a clue as to what you did.   Give it a try, please!

The file is about 386kb, much smaller than orig but larger than allowed on the forum, in my file locker here. So, download and give it a try.  I will leave the file available for about 3 days then delete.

I for one do not like the color problems with the tonemapping...I have a trial version of  Photomatrix and converted the jpg to 16bit tiff to get it to work.  The results were ok but darker than desired.  There was not a problem with color on the barn..it stayed white while the sky stayed a grayer shade of gray and grass went a slight bit greener. Sky was gray overcast when the shot was taken, very little blue to the eye. (In my attempt with the software,  I wanted to keep original color in tack and did not do it well.  I am not familiar enough with the software to use it correctly.)

So, if you want to try your method with the original image, go ahead. It should be just big enough to work with and post as smaller file.         Tom

Here ya go ;-) I tone mapped it very little with photomatrix then what i did was go into Photoshop and chose image /adjust/ shadow and highlight. this helps bring back some loss that photomatrix does.. then for detail I made another layer and on the new layer I went to filter/ other/ high pass and I set the setting at 0.7.. and you will see that turned the new layer gray with a bit of embossing.. so now the gray layer. change that to the vivid color setting in the drop down where the layers are.. I find this works a lot better then unsharp filter

now if this was my image i would be fixing the hot spots in the clouds..
but this pretty much the way i edit all the time :-)

I tone map all my stuff the same way for example here is straight out of the camera shot and then ill post the tone mapped one but this is done just like i explained on the barn image

and then tone mapped

photoshopped..

adjusted highlights,shadows and midtones via layes and select color filter,
adjadjusted with curves and exsposure filter.. bit of burning on the clouds

oh and straightened it a tad :)

Pretty tough to work with such a small jpg...Also, parts of the sky are blown out, making it impossible to recover those sky portions. But here's a quick attempt while still trying to maintain a reasonably natural look (straightened as well)....click on image to see larger size version...

Photoshop.

set Black point with levels adjustment layer
Curves adjustment layer darken sky using mask
Curves adjustment layer add contrast to barn using mask
Local contrast enhancement (unsharp mask) layer
Smart sharpen layer
all above layers in luminosity blend mode.
 
Colour saturation increase layer normal blend mode.

 

Richard, this one gets quite close to the mood of the day. It was a bit brighter but then again not to blow out some sky gives us a more overcast day.  

Thanks for the how-to included..to everyone.       Tom.