Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: shutterpup on June 25, 2009, 01:03:25 pm
-
I like this shot because it shows a close-up of a weathered rock structure and then it has good detail of the strata of the canyon itself in the background.
[attachment=14840:Lorraine...hoto_142.jpg]
-
This is, IMHO, the best image you've submitted so far! There's a clear theme, the composition is pretty good, and DOF is well chosen. I find myself wanting to see a little more foreground, but you've effectively placed your subject in the proper area of the backdrop. Nice job.
-
Good composition, but try shooting this at dawn or dusk and you will get a much better result.
Ed
-
Pup, I agree with Jason. It's by far the best thing you've posted. Depth of field is exactly what you need for a shot like this and your composition couldn't be better. As you know, I'm not a lover of landscape, but this is very good landscape. Ed's got a point too, though I wouldn't say you'll get a "better" result. You'll get a "different" result. Morning and evening light gives you sidelight drama but you also lose detail in the deep shadows. In the light in this picture, everything's there.
-
Ed's got a point too, though I wouldn't say you'll get a "better" result. You'll get a "different" result. Morning and evening light gives you sidelight drama but you also lose detail in the deep shadows. In the light in this picture, everything's there.
Russ
Oh pish and bosh to your relativism. Midday light is just bad, unless you are in the ultra latitudes.
-
Russ
Oh pish and bosh to your relativism. Midday light is just bad, unless you are in the ultra latitudes.
Okay, Ed, I hear your pish, and a faint posh, but I still say "different." You also get "different" light in fog, and at night. In any case I think Pup's landscape is one of the best I've seen posted on User Critiques. I'd love to see even better ones, but I'm not sitting here holding my breath. I will admit that midday light usually is less than optimal, though.
-
An unusually good balance of foreground and background.
-
In my opinion, this photo is just about perfect. The composition is tight, with well chosen corners and the primary focal object (the rocky outcropping in the foreground) is in an ideal place. What I like most about the rocky prominence in the foreground is that it is positioned so as not to obstruct the rocky peaks on the horizon. Overall, the composition of this shot has an intelligence that is lacking in some of your other shots. Nicely done!
-
I thank everyone for their comments.
I started posting photos here with more than a little trepidation. You know how other sites are; an atta boy and meaningless nonsense passing for critique. I appreciate the candor of this site. I can feel myself growing as a photographer with the feedback I've gotten here so far. I find myself looking at my "good" photos and asking myself "What was I thinking" as I study the metadata and the resulting photo.
I had gotten drawn into the "crop and crop again" mentality of cropping a bad photo into abstraction, and thinking it was a good result. My thinking about this is changing dramatically. Yes, I am growing as I read comments not only about my photos but others as well.
About the time of day to shoot. I realize that sunrise and sunset have their own special uniqueness in the quality of light. And I have been able to take advantage of that light. But that leaves the rest of the day. If I'm traveling through an area, should I not photograph an interesting scene because the light is not optimal? If I can't return at a more favorable time, then I think it only right to get the shot. For crying out loud, even Ansel Adams shot in the middle of the day; I think here of "Boards and Thistles-San Francisco, California c. 1932" and "Silverton-Colorado 1951."
-
I like this shot because it shows a close-up of a weathered rock structure and then it has good detail of the strata of the canyon itself in the background.
[attachment=14840:Lorraine...hoto_142.jpg]
Nice! Man, I'd like to get out that way again.
I have 2 suggestions. I am a bit troubled by the placement of the foreground rock in relation to the horizon. It seems that it should either extend above the horizon more, or not at all. Also, the colors in the distant walls seem a bit muted - I wonder if the Lab color trick would help - convert to Lab color and increase the slope of the a and b curves a bit (this is from Dan Margulis's book).
Peter
-
Nice! Man, I'd like to get out that way again.
I have 2 suggestions. I am a bit troubled by the placement of the foreground rock in relation to the horizon. It seems that it should either extend above the horizon more, or not at all. Also, the colors in the distant walls seem a bit muted - I wonder if the Lab color trick would help - convert to Lab color and increase the slope of the a and b curves a bit (this is from Dan Margulis's book).
Peter
What is this urge to take a perfectly good photograph and "fix" it? The foreground rock is right where it belongs. This isn't a stage set. The colors in the distant walls are muted because they're distant. By the way, the Lab a and b channel color trick is archaic compared with Camera Raw's Vibrance feature. It's time for everyone to get off the post-processing compulsion and concentrate on learning to look.
-
What is this urge to take a perfectly good photograph and "fix" it? The foreground rock is right where it belongs. This isn't a stage set. The colors in the distant walls are muted because they're distant. By the way, the Lab a and b channel color trick is archaic compared with Camera Raw's Vibrance feature. It's time for everyone to get off the post-processing compulsion and concentrate on learning to look.
Russ,
Thank you for saying so eloquently what I was too polite to say.
-
Well said Russ. PP is the polish, not the paint.
-
Russ I agree with some of what you say but take exception with this:
By the way, the Lab a and b channel color trick is archaic compared with Camera Raw's Vibrance feature.
Using the LAB curve as an adjustment layer gives you quite a bit more flexibility if you know what you're doing. The Vibrance control is crude in comparison.
-
shutterpup I agree with much of what others have said. This is a fine image, and you did an excellent job of balancing the composition. The rock is placed just right, and you did a good job of emphasing the foreground and midground, while de-emphasizing the plain blue sky.
I don't think you need a dramatic sunrise/sunset with fiery colors in the sky to make a picture like this successful; however I do think that slightly more directional light could enhance this picture even more. Some shadows would bring out the contours in the canyon, and create more depth in the composition.
That said, I certainly understand the limitations of being on vacation and having a limited amount of time at a given location. Like you, I'm not going to stop shooting just because it's not the 'magic hour' anymore. I've found that shooting for B/W or infrared can greatly extend the number of hours of 'good light' in a day, although here you've got enough colors in the canyon that color works also.
-
What is this urge to take a perfectly good photograph and "fix" it? The foreground rock is right where it belongs. This isn't a stage set. The colors in the distant walls are muted because they're distant. By the way, the Lab a and b channel color trick is archaic compared with Camera Raw's Vibrance feature. It's time for everyone to get off the post-processing compulsion and concentrate on learning to look.
Russ, I respect your opinion, but I have to take issue with the word compulsion. I see PP as happening the moment one decides to photograph something, because to me, PP refers to what one does to a mental image in order to convert it into a physical presentation. It starts when we choose a camera, lens and medium (film/digital). It may then proceed into the realm of dodging, burning, or more extreme manipulations. Ergo, it moves along a continuum, a necessary part of the imaging chain: it has to happen.
Furthermore, in my opinion, PP carries as much weight as composition and timing. We can wield it like a scalpel, or like a hammer. In the end, it comes down to one simple question: what am I trying to accomplish? If a photo is "perfectly good", then the PP involved was also "perfectly good".
John
-
Russ I agree with some of what you say but take exception with this:
Using the LAB curve as an adjustment layer gives you quite a bit more flexibility if you know what you're doing. The Vibrance control is crude in comparison.
Jeff, You may be right. It's been a while since I've used the Lab approach. My photographs, coming off the camera, are close enough to a final product that I don't need to use that extra flexibility. I almost never use Vibrance. I do use a smidgen of Clarity, and I sharpen. Sometimes I make a minor while balance adjustment if the light was difficult. If I have to go much beyond those adjustments I throw the file away. I'd much rather be back on the street shooting than in my office post-processing.
Here's an example of what I mean from a few days ago. It's a fairly routine street shot -- not a great picture, but it's technically the kind of quality I demand before I keep a shot. This picture doesn't need any post-processing. I feel no urge to "fix" it, or, as Button put it, to wield Photoshop as a scalpel to "improve" the shot. It is what it is right now. Yes, with landscape sometimes you need to do more, but you always should do the absolute minimum. The time to convert a mental image into a physical presentation is when you trip the shutter.
[attachment=14866:Jun_16_2009_04.jpg]
-
Yes, with landscape sometimes you need to do more, but you always should do the absolute minimum. The time to convert a mental image into a physical presentation is when you trip the shutter.
Russ, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these two points. Your statement highlights a fundamental difference you and I have with respect to (at the risk of sounding pretentious) artistic vision. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you want your images to look as close to the final product as possible as soon as you push the button, hence the notion that the physical presentation is more or less formed in camera. In other words, your post processing (or image processing, as I like to think of it) involves choosing the right in camera settings or film and basically stops at capture.
I, on the other hand, believe that no matter how well I think out an idea (and trust me, I prefer to really contemplate a shot before I take it if possible), further processing might unlock potential within an image that I could never have anticipated. This means additional cropping, local adjustments, and even extreme alterations that can actually metamorphose a picture, forcing me to reevaluate its entire concept. To me, the ends justify the means.
In summary, I firmly adhere to the notion that we should try to control what we can, but remain open to unexpected creative possibilities. To me, a great image is a great image, no matter how you get there.
John
-
Nice backdrop for a really ugly rock.
-
Gonna reply too.
Russ,
when you say "with landscape sometimes you need to do more, but you always should do the absolute minimum.": Always keep post at minimum, that is clearly no good general advice, we dont need to argue about that.
Had you instead said "Keep your post work always to a minimum when you are practicing getting familiar with photography" it would have been more clear. Because Im sure that was what you wanted to say. You didnt intend to say that you ALWAYS need to keep post work at a minimum. Im sure you just meant it in the context of learning photography. So, you left room for interpretation. Not that this is a bad thing on itself, but since at least I found you being picky in the thread I would have thought it would be good to be as picky in your own argumentation to avoid misunderstandings. Thats what I wanted to say. If I am picky, the others are getting picky too.
I hope I somehow made sense, and that my post is not considered inappropriate. Well in fact Im writing this because I like your expertise. And if anyone feels I got it wrong, or am misunderstanding something, please just point it out.
All the best,
Christian
-
Gonna reply too.
Russ,
when you say "with landscape sometimes you need to do more, but you always should do the absolute minimum.": Always keep post at minimum, that is clearly no good general advice, we dont need to argue about that.
Had you instead said "Keep your post work always to a minimum when you are practicing getting familiar with photography" it would have been more clear. Because Im sure that was what you wanted to say. You didnt intend to say that you ALWAYS need to keep post work at a minimum. Im sure you just meant it in the context of learning photography. So, you left room for interpretation. Not that this is a bad thing on itself, but since at least I found you being picky in the thread I would have thought it would be good to be as picky in your own argumentation to avoid misunderstandings. Thats what I wanted to say. If I am picky, the others are getting picky too.
I hope I somehow made sense, and that my post is not considered inappropriate. Well in fact Im writing this because I like your expertise. And if anyone feels I got it wrong, or am misunderstanding something, please just point it out.
All the best,
Christian
Ok. I'm gonna jump in here. I will not speak for Russ as he can speak for himself. I will however state my thoughts on this matter.
I too am of the school that PP should always be at a minimum, whether I am a seasoned photographer or just learning. I am not into graphic art, which is where I think heavy-handed PP can send any photo. When I came into ownership of PP software, I was enthralled, hypnotized if you would, by how I could take a nothing photo and make it into something totally different; whether the outcome was good or not was totally dependent on MY frame of reference. Now, I know there are a lot of photographers who PP their photos to death; that is their trademark. That is fine. It will never be my trademark. I believe that the main decisions are made in the camera; I find my best shots are best right out of the camera. And if I'm not really seeing at the time, my worst shots are worst right out of the camera. I am convinced that there is no amount of PP that will rescue a truly poor shot, and that a light hand with PP can enhance an already good photo.
There seems that there is a place for both ways of doing PP; you just gotta know where you stand.
My 2cents.
-
You always want to keep post to a minimum. Why would you do more post than you need? Now, defining how much post you need is another matter.
-
Gonna reply too.
Russ,
when you say "with landscape sometimes you need to do more, but you always should do the absolute minimum.": Always keep post at minimum, that is clearly no good general advice, we dont need to argue about that.
Had you instead said "Keep your post work always to a minimum when you are practicing getting familiar with photography" it would have been more clear. Because Im sure that was what you wanted to say. You didnt intend to say that you ALWAYS need to keep post work at a minimum. Im sure you just meant it in the context of learning photography. So, you left room for interpretation. Not that this is a bad thing on itself, but since at least I found you being picky in the thread I would have thought it would be good to be as picky in your own argumentation to avoid misunderstandings. Thats what I wanted to say. If I am picky, the others are getting picky too.
I hope I somehow made sense, and that my post is not considered inappropriate. Well in fact Im writing this because I like your expertise. And if anyone feels I got it wrong, or am misunderstanding something, please just point it out.
All the best,
Christian
Christian,
Yes. I may be overstating the case, but if I am it's because I see so many people on this forum putting forth the idea that what you should do is go out, bang away more or less at random with your camera, and then see if you can squeeze something worthwhile out of the result in post-processing. That's the most destructive advice possible to someone trying to learn to produce fine photographs.
I agree with John to the extent that when you do something like landscape there are times when you have to plan on the post-processing at the time you shoot the picture. Here's an example. Not a picture I'm particularly proud of, but I use it for illustration. I drove across South Park and up to Breckenridge, Colorado today. On the way back the clouds had moved in over the mountains and it was raining. I stopped and shot this picture, knowing I was going to have to do some post-processing to emphasize the clouds, which clearly wouldn't be balanced in the file. I had to use a gradient to do that. The color needed a slight adjustment too. If this were a shot I'd think about printing, I'd probably have done a bit more post-processing than I did, but there's not much more I could do that would improve it
[attachment=14868:Rain_Clouds.jpg].
I most emphatically don't agree with John about remaining open to "unexpected creative possibilities" in post-processing. That's the kind of thing I've been arguing against all along. You need to see the creative possibilities before you trip the shutter. If you have to look for creative possibilities after you've tripped the shutter then you clearly need more practice.
-
Best be careful with that strawman. Been awfully dry this year.
-
Best be careful with that strawman. Been awfully dry this year.
Not in the mountains.
-
Since I've helped burn up server memory by making posts not directly related to the original image, the least I can do is offer a critique.
As you said, Shutterpup, you took this shot while on vacation and couldn't shoot this at a golden hour time. Obviously, this light is somewhat harsh, but it does create an interesting contrast: the midday light has cast the foreground rock in essentially a monochrome orange yellow, while the background appears multicolored- haze has created this effect: the canyon is several hundred yards to miles away, and atmospheric blue has become part of the mix.
I'm still not sure what I think about the foreground rock's relationship to the horizon. Perhaps it might have had more impact if you could have gotten a bit lower to the ground and a bit closer, shooting with a wider lens. Lower positioning would have made the rock sit a bit higher in the sky and a wider lens would have emphasized its presence through wide angle distortion. Maybe you tried this, and maybe it didn't work- maybe this wasn't your vision.
You've got a really good shot here which has generated very positive responses, and you obviously like it. I do think, though, that some judicious adjustments could strengthen it. I would try burning all of the background a bit, along with some desaturation. I would also increase the saturation of the sky and experiment with a bit more in the foreground orange yellow. I think that these moves would better separate the elements and create further interest.
John
-
Yes. I may be overstating the case, but if I am it's because I see so many people on this forum putting forth the idea that what you should do is go out, bang away more or less at random with your camera, and then see if you can squeeze something worthwhile out of the result in post-processing. That's the most destructive advice possible to someone trying to learn to produce fine photographs.
I agree ... to the extent that when you do something like landscape there are times when you have to plan on the post-processing at the time you shoot the picture. ... I most emphatically don't agree with John about remaining open to "unexpected creative possibilities" in post-processing. That's the kind of thing I've been arguing against all along. You need to see the creative possibilities before you trip the shutter. If you have to look for creative possibilities after you've tripped the shutter then you clearly need more practice.
Russ, to be direct, your advice how to shoot properly is very good, but you neglection of the creative possibilities digital provides (thats how I interpret it!) sounds so yesterday. So many people out there wich came from the digital side, are experimenting all the time with it and come up with new stuff, and are doing fine images. Why dont you affirm digital experimenting and at the same time discern it from shooting? Then your advice and also your remark about the dangers of fixing would be even stronger.
-
Since I've helped burn up server memory by making posts not directly related to the original image, the least I can do is offer a critique.
As you said, Shutterpup, you took this shot while on vacation and couldn't shoot this at a golden hour time. Obviously, this light is somewhat harsh, but it does create an interesting contrast: the midday light has cast the foreground rock in essentially a monochrome orange yellow, while the background appears multicolored- haze has created this effect: the canyon is several hundred yards to miles away, and atmospheric blue has become part of the mix.
I'm still not sure what I think about the foreground rock's relationship to the horizon. Perhaps it might have had more impact if you could have gotten a bit lower to the ground and a bit closer, shooting with a wider lens. Lower positioning would have made the rock sit a bit higher in the sky and a wider lens would have emphasized its presence through wide angle distortion. Maybe you tried this, and maybe it didn't work- maybe this wasn't your vision.
You've got a really good shot here which has generated very positive responses, and you obviously like it. I do think, though, that some judicious adjustments could strengthen it. I would try burning all of the background a bit, along with some desaturation. I would also increase the saturation of the sky and experiment with a bit more in the foreground orange yellow. I think that these moves would better separate the elements and create further interest.
John
Well John,
Here's the rest of the story on this photo. I had just gotten my DSLR in March 2008; didn't know much about much of anything. I shot a lot of black and white film back in the 80's; I got away from photography which is a story left for another day. Anyway, I was shooting JPEG on this trip, which was in Sept 2008. I started shooting RAW in October 2008 in response to my great frustration with the limits of shooting JPEG made on my images made on vacation. I have looked at the images from this trip, and I agree there are some things that I could do if they were in RAW. But they're not. A lesson learned.
-
Russ, to be direct, your advice how to shoot properly is very good, but you neglection of the creative possibilities digital provides (thats how I interpret it!) sounds so yesterday. So many people out there wich came from the digital side, are experimenting all the time with it and come up with new stuff, and are doing fine images. Why dont you affirm digital experimenting and at the same time discern it from shooting? Then your advice and also your remark about the dangers of fixing would be even stronger.
Christian, I did software engineering from 1978 to 2009 and I still do a bit of it. I've been doing digital photography since the first digital cameras with more than VGA resolution came out. I've done a lot of "digital experimenting." I have absolutely nothing against "digital art," as long as it doesn't pose as photography.
-
Well John,
Here's the rest of the story on this photo. I had just gotten my DSLR in March 2008; didn't know much about much of anything. I shot a lot of black and white film back in the 80's; I got away from photography which is a story left for another day. Anyway, I was shooting JPEG on this trip, which was in Sept 2008. I started shooting RAW in October 2008 in response to my great frustration with the limits of shooting JPEG made on my images made on vacation. I have looked at the images from this trip, and I agree there are some things that I could do if they were in RAW. But they're not. A lesson learned.
You can still make adjustments to jpegs, if you want to. One of my personal favorite photos I shot as a 10 megapixel jpeg on a Pentax k10D with an f 1.4 85mm lens, wide open. I didn't know how much I liked it until I saw it on my monitor.
Now, there were several things wrong with it: wrong white balance, lots of purple fringing, lack of depth of field, etc. However, I knew that was a one time shot, so I made the best of it with some serious photoshopping. In the end, I printed it 2x3 feet and hung it on my wall.
My point is that if you like an imperfect photo and know you can't go back for a redo, then I say do what you can to make it look as good as you can. I'm just suggesting how you might make it better, and if you don't agree, that's OK. Your opinion is the only one that matters in the end. Call that graphic art, photography, or whatever you want. If the result makes you happy, then isn't that OK?
John
-
My point is that if you like an imperfect photo and know you can't go back for a redo, then I say do what you can to make it look as good as you can. I'm just suggesting how you might make it better, and if you don't agree, that's OK. Your opinion is the only one that matters in the end. Call that graphic art, photography, or whatever you want. If the result makes you happy, then isn't that OK?
John
John, I don't think anyone can disagree with this. Here's an example. I caught these two Korean kids gossiping while they took a bath in 1953, during the Korean war. It's a Kodachrome and the transparency had deteriorated rather badly by the time I could digitize it. I had to do extensive work in Photoshop to bring it to this point, and I still don't like to print it larger than 8 x 10. But it's one of my all-time favorites.
[attachment=14875:Washtub.jpg]
But this kind of restoration work isn't the same thing as not bothering to do it right when you have the camera in your hands, and then trying to recover something worthwhile later.
-
But this kind of restoration work isn't the same thing as not bothering to do it right when you have the camera in your hands, and then trying to recover something worthwhile later.
I agree, and I haven't argued that photoshopping can substitute for competent camera work. I just think that photoshop technique carries as much (and probably more) weight than darkroom technique, given its greater flexibility. Didn't Ansel Adams come back to some of his negatives years later to print them using new and improved darkroom technique? He also said something to effect of "the negative is the conductor, and the print is the performance." Since photoshop is the new darkroom (lightroom), then what's the intellectual difference?
You caught a really special moment in your attached shot- well done.
John
Edit reason: spelling
-
I agree, and I haven't argued that photoshopping can substitute for competent camera work. I just think that photoshop technique carries as much (and probably more) weight than darkroom technique, given its greater flexibility. Didn't Ansel Adams come back to some of his negatives years later to print them using new and improved darkroom technique? He also said something to effect of "the negative is the conductor, and the print is the performance." Since photoshop is the new darkroom (lightroom), then what's the intellectual difference?
Your caught a really special moment in your attached shot- well done.
John
John, Thanks, and I think we agree pretty much down the line. But I'll have to admit I've always had a nagging problem with what Ansel said about the score and the performance. He was thinking like a painter. He had a point all right, but I have to contrast that view with HCB's view that the content is the performance, not the specific print. I'm not sure I agree completely with either of them, but I think I lean more to the HCB view than to the Ansel view. Gene Smith would agree with Ansel. Robert Frank would agree with HCB. I guess it depends on the situation. I posted two other pictures in the course of this long discussion. If I were going to print the picture of the girl having lunch I'd tend toward the HCB view. If I were going to print the picture of the mountains in rain I think I'd tend toward the Ansel view.
Incidentally, what Ansel did with his negatives -- coming back years later to use improved tools -- should be a caution to digital photographers to shoot raw. I've only been shooting digital for about ten years, but already I've been able to go back and improve some of my earliest stuff as Photoshop continues to evolve. The tools are going to keep on getting better and if you haven't thrown away parts of the information in your pictures by shooting .jpeg or .tiff you can keep on improving the "performance." Yes, you can do that with .jpeg too, but only with what's left after .jpeg does its own degrading.
-
[quote name='button' date='Jun 27 2009, 12:24 PM' post='294117
My point is that if you like an imperfect photo and know you can't go back for a redo, then I say do what you can to make it look as good as you can. I'm just suggesting how you might make it better, and if you don't agree, that's OK. Your opinion is the only one that matters in the end. Call that graphic art, photography, or whatever you want. If the result makes you happy, then isn't that OK?
John
[/quote]
John,
I agree here with you to a point. The truth of the matter is that it matters to us what others think. Unless you are a sociopath, you care about what others think of something that you hold dear. Why else do we attempt to communicate with each other and seek out others' experience? Some of us put more stock in what others' opinions are of our creative attempts than others, but IMHO, in the end, it's fair to say that we want to find those people who share our vision of the world.
I may not be perfectly happy with my images, but you're right; where I choose to leave them when it comes to processing is totally my choice.
Thanks for the suggestions. If I ever get some form of PP beyond the Aperture that I work with, I'll probably go back and take a second look, not just at this image, but at several others as well.
-
Jeff, You may be right. It's been a while since I've used the Lab approach. My photographs, coming off the camera, are close enough to a final product that I don't need to use that extra flexibility. I almost never use Vibrance. I do use a smidgen of Clarity, and I sharpen. Sometimes I make a minor while balance adjustment if the light was difficult. If I have to go much beyond those adjustments I throw the file away. I'd much rather be back on the street shooting than in my office post-processing.
I have a different approach, but that's probably because I'm doing a different kind of photography than you.
Digital not only sees things differently from our eyes (due to the linear nature of the sensor), but is also a completely different beast from shooting slides (which is what most color landscapes were on pre-digital). With Velvia and Kodachrome, the post-processing is already baked-in, the colors are very vibrant and the tones are contrasty. I shoot digital knowing full-well I'm not going to get those kind of results straight out of the camera, but I still pre-visualize what I want to the image to look like when shooting. I certainly don't take a "spray and pray, fix it in Photoshop" approach to shooting.
I just see no reason why shooting two exposures, digitally blending them in post processing, and then tweaking the colors and contrast is any less a photograph than if I had shot Velvia, with graduated ND's and color-correcting filters. Neither one is a literal, documentary representation of the scene; but that's OK because I'm not shooting documentary work. I'm shooting fine-art landscapes, and there's a certain amount of interpretation there (even if I feel the results should still be 'believable').
-
I have a different approach, but that's probably because I'm doing a different kind of photography than you.
Digital not only sees things differently from our eyes (due to the linear nature of the sensor), but is also a completely different beast from shooting slides (which is what most color landscapes were on pre-digital). With Velvia and Kodachrome, the post-processing is already baked-in, the colors are very vibrant and the tones are contrasty. I shoot digital knowing full-well I'm not going to get those kind of results straight out of the camera, but I still pre-visualize what I want to the image to look like when shooting. I certainly don't take a "spray and pray, fix it in Photoshop" approach to shooting.
I just see no reason why shooting two exposures, digitally blending them in post processing, and then tweaking the colors and contrast is any less a photograph than if I had shot Velvia, with graduated ND's and color-correcting filters. Neither one is a literal, documentary representation of the scene; but that's OK because I'm not shooting documentary work. I'm shooting fine-art landscapes, and there's a certain amount of interpretation there (even if I feel the results should still be 'believable').
Jeff, I can't see that we disagree. What you're talking about is a situation where you see the picture before you make the shot or shots, then reconstruct it later from what you capture. Yes, in most cases I'm shooting a different kind of photograph than you are. I concentrate on street photography and pictures of human structures -- with or without people. But (and I probably should say this in very small type) occasionally I shoot HDR. If I'm shooting in bright sunlight, where I know either the highlights will be blown or the shadows will be dead, I may shoot as many as 9 bracketed frames and join them up later. As you pointed out, with a linear digital sensor where half the information is in the highest stop, that approach can take the place of the old black and white saw: "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Here's an example. It's a bracketed 9 frame HDR. I hand-held the sequence, by the way, but I was able to rest my elbows on a railing. There's no way on earth a single exposure could have caught the actual scene I was seeing.
[attachment=14881:Edison_Lab.jpg]
I deliberately let the sunbeam blow out -- to give the thing that sparkle you can only get if there's some specular light in the picture. I was lucky with the sunbeam. About a minute after I shot, the sun went behind the clouds and never came back the rest of the day. This was during a visit to Edison's Florida lab, a long way from home.
-
.....I see so many people on this forum putting forth the idea that what you should do is go out, bang away more or less at random with your camera, and then see if you can squeeze something worthwhile out of the result in post-processing.
.....You need to see the creative possibilities before you trip the shutter.
That's just plain suppressive. Or repressive. No matter how good your scene is, or how well you've "captured" it, it's still just a capture of a scene. That's hardly what I'd call Art. Art happens later, by and large.