This one got archived and in my opinion is one of my five best. What went wrong...how could I have improved it?

An HDR Winter

This is one of the best photos I have ever seen here, I don't see any way it can be improved. A few of my best were also archived. Who knows.

The scene, and the composition were very good. The post processing, IMO, is what did it in. There's CA throughout the shot, with tell-tale red fringe.
Also, while it's nice to see a sharp clear shot, this one seems a bit overly sharpened.. it doesn't feel natural. The lighting is uneven, and it's source or direction isn't immediately apparent.

As an alternative to HDR, I'd recommend the "Highlight/Shadows" feature in Photoshop. That, and "Smart Sharpen", in advanced mode, and then in edit, fade the effect until a balance between clear, and natural is obtained.

Uhm ... your image Jerry is showing as a 'perm' in the Water category to me as of this writing?

Am I missing something here?

EDIT: The chromatic aberration (CA) that Rob is referring to ... is more evident in the upper right portions of your image ... at the edges of the fir trees' upper boughs.

As an aside then ... any boost in colour saturation performed?

I have a similar shot in the perms but it's not HDR. This one isn't in...not that it really matters but I was curious. I just got a new HDR program when I did this and have redone it since and I think it is better now that I am more used to the program. I did get the CA out. Admittedly the sky is a bit heavy but I was going for a more dramatic affect. The joys of HDR is that you can dial it in. This was sharpened with smart sharpen in CS3 set at 60 which is fairly minimal. HDR will kick it in the pants a bit but not usually excessive. The CA is no doubt a little over cooking in HDR...it's not in the originals. Saturation control in HDR is the same as any other editing program...HDR just has more information to pick from...much more dynamic range...hence the name HDR (High Dynamic Range). I am learning to go a little easier on the recipe. In fact there are some pics up that are HDR and one would be hard pressed to sort them out. The new version of this was done in a 9x11 print and looks great...no CA and no noise. The guy that did it wants to sign me to an exclusive (I'm not too keen on that) if I do I have to pull everything he uses off of here which would be a major chunk of my gallery. I want to see some $ figures before I go signing anything...talk is cheap.

I do see the flaws in this upon closer examination and it pretty much answers my question...thanks guys for the input.

I'm a bit late, but my thoughts are that the slight "unnatural" aspect of the shot is very appealing, because the natural feeling is not at all lost. The only thing I would say would maybe to add a slight blurring affect to the river. The way it's "frozen in time" doesn't add a lot to the scene (at least for my liking). Anyway, its an outstanding shot and I don't think you have anything to worry about!!

Thanks... I would have done a slow shutter on the river but had to shoot this handheld.

really nice shot, however i personally believe that with a lot of these HDR shots, the whole image has such perfect contrast and color that i cant find a focal point, and it all just merges into one big scene. it almost feels like too much. too perfect?

That's a good one...too perfect. No matter it's coming down anyway.

Since when is 85 a bad score??

Jerry, archiving isn't always done via c-index. It also has to do with the uniqueness of the image. Many of my personal 'best' are achieved due to the fact that there is an abundance of that type of image.
I hope this helps you understand the current system in place :=)

...I don't think you have to worry so much about you're shots not making it into the perms, Jerry. If there was a statistic for how many times people visit and look through an individual's gallery, I guarantee you that your's would be at the top of that list. If you're worried that your shots aren't getting the most exposure because they aren't in the permanent galleries, I think you're underestimating how many visitors your gallery gets as a whole.

I for one don't want to see you take down any of your shots!!

Thanks Stephen but I just took down 30 pages of my gallery and I'm not done yet. I don't care about the perms nor the c-index for that matter anymore. I will replace a few that I pulled but I'm trying hard to get out of the landscapes for various reasons.

Well in that case I'm looking forward to the new stuff

Take a look at it...you may be the only one :-)

I'm curious...I know why you don't care about the c-index anymore (I've been through that myself) and if you're not hung up on the perms, then why scale down your gallery? What's the purpose?

I guess what I'm getting at is what are you looking for? My thought is that if at least one other person likes or appreciates what I do, then I consider it a success. I too don't care about the c-index or permanent galleries, just that I can share something that I like.

Well that's what I'm doing...I'm just throwing out what I don't like and I found a lot of it. I'm toying with the idea of a rotating single page. When a picture reaches 12 it's outa here and replaced by the next etc. etc. Everything stays fresh and new. The c-index can be stuffed and that takes care of a lot of ills. Now I just have to get up the nerve to kill about another 38 pages.

That makes perfect sense...I think it's a great idea. Good luck weeding them all down!!