Two takes. Which do you prefer? First, the basic jacked-up HDR.
And here’s the glow process.
Share this:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- More
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Nextdoor (Opens in new window) Nextdoor
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
winterSmith 
I’m losing definition in the glow. Not happy.
LikeLike
That’s kind of the trade-off with that effect. Less definition, more, well, glow. I personally like the other one better, but I never know what the rest of you are going to think.
LikeLike
The first is my choice although the difference between it and numero dos is pretty subtle. Great capture of a very limited production classic either way.
LikeLike
I’m with Greg. The HDR is crisper. Both are well executed, so it comes down to preference.
LikeLike
I say number one as well but I am with Frank that the differences are quite subtle. I had to study it pretty closely. I like the slightly more saturated color (mostly the blue) of number 1.
LikeLike