Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Andres Bonilla on January 18, 2011, 05:15:46 pm
-
Cabrillo National Cemetery, beautiful place very peaceful. Handheld shot while leaning on a fence.
-
Great blend of colours. Curious that only one stone has visible engraving...
Mike.
-
The subject appears to be a promising location for the work-the-scene concept. In other words, multiple shooting from different angles, with different lenses, at different times. For this single attempt, I am not sure it does the full justice to the location. The post-processing appears to be too aggressive. For instance, I do not get how the cloud, just above the fiery sunset, remains colorless, while the tombstones in the shade are strong purple?
-
I'm also curious about the post processing applied to this shot. The colors look unreal to me, despite the sunset light.
-
Is this in San Diego? I note a Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery near Cabrillo National Monument.
I agree, it looks like a promising site to continue working. But I, too, am puzzled by the strong purple shadow.
Paul
-
Hi, nice shot, but does not hit the right spot for me I am afraid.
It would be my guess that this is a single shot worked through as a Faux HDR, because the purplelish tones remind me of those that seem to arise from pushing an image through the tone mapper multiple times. So for me, the image has really great composition, but the pixels have been pushed a tad too far for me.
Photobloke :)
-
Great blend of colours. Curious that only one stone has visible engraving...
Mike.
Thanks Mike, the location was a lucky find, we went to see the lighthouse which was closed and stumbled on this gorgeous sunset and the lovely cemetery.
-
The subject appears to be a promising location for the work-the-scene concept. In other words, multiple shooting from different angles, with different lenses, at different times. For this single attempt, I am not sure it does the full justice to the location. The post-processing appears to be too aggressive. For instance, I do not get how the cloud, just above the fiery sunset, remains colorless, while the tombstones in the shade are strong purple?
Thanks for your comment! Yes! I know saturation is like salt it varies according to the photographer :) I had only time to snap a few photos but I did get some good ones and I worked them less aggressively; the curious thing was that 98% of non photographers preferred the more colorful punchy ones. I did work the photo, more for shadow recovery than for effect but after a while I liked the mood and atmosphere of it. Here is one with more tradional colors which I also like.
-
I'm also curious about the post processing applied to this shot. The colors look unreal to me, despite the sunset light.
Yes it was a stylistic approach that depending on the viewer or forum it may score or fail. It is still wonderful to read the comments to balance your final decision as to the photograph.
-
Is this in San Diego? I note a Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery near Cabrillo National Monument.
I agree, it looks like a promising site to continue working. But I, too, am puzzled by the strong purple shadow.
Paul
Yes Paul, it is San Diego. We were blessed with beautiful sunsets this weekend.
-
Hi, nice shot, but does not hit the right spot for me I am afraid.
It would be my guess that this is a single shot worked through as a Faux HDR, because the purplelish tones remind me of those that seem to arise from pushing an image through the tone mapper multiple times. So for me, the image has really great composition, but the pixels have been pushed a tad too far for me.
Photobloke :)
Thank you sir for your comment! Yeah I knew that the treatment of the photo was going to arise questions to the style or excess of it :) But as it turns out most non photographers preferred this rendition than the most traditional ones. They do not know about HDR or shadow recovery, they do know that tombstones are not purple but they are more spontaneous in their likes and dislikes. I have to balance the results with the different viewers. Here is a comment form another forum from a gentleman that likes photography but he is a writer.
"This is amazing! This is one of those shots that probably dates me, but it reminds me a bit of some of the stuff I'd seen in OMNI Magazine...most of that stuff was science or science fiction related, but they'd also do some of the most wonderful urban or "atmospheric" shots for their subscription advertisements. This reminds me of one of those "business reply mail" cards...I always wanted to frame them because they looked so good! This reminds me of those little cards; it's got a similar sense of brilliant, almost unreal color, and yet it's something real. This is quite fantastic, quite touching as well. I'm especially taken by the silhouette of the tree against the fiery sky. That and the vague purple of the headstones is what makes this image pop. Excellent work!"
Another photographer wrote " Very nice comp but a little over saturated cooked for my taste" So I need to find a middle ground maybe?
-
Thank you sir for your comment! Yeah I knew that the treatment of the photo was going to arise questions to the style or excess of it :) But as it turns out most non photographers preferred this rendition than the most traditional ones. They do not know about HDR or shadow recovery, they do know that tombstones are not purple but they are more spontaneous in their likes and dislikes. I have to balance the results with the different viewers. Here is a comment form another forum from a gentleman that likes photography but he is a writer.
"This is amazing! This is one of those shots that probably dates me, but it reminds me a bit of some of the stuff I'd seen in OMNI Magazine...most of that stuff was science or science fiction related, but they'd also do some of the most wonderful urban or "atmospheric" shots for their subscription advertisements. This reminds me of one of those "business reply mail" cards...I always wanted to frame them because they looked so good! This reminds me of those little cards; it's got a similar sense of brilliant, almost unreal color, and yet it's something real. This is quite fantastic, quite touching as well. I'm especially taken by the silhouette of the tree against the fiery sky. That and the vague purple of the headstones is what makes this image pop. Excellent work!"
Another photographer wrote " Very nice comp but a little over saturated cooked for my taste" So I need to find a middle ground maybe?
I'm an advocate of finding one's own ground on how one creates an image rather than finding the middle ground from others' opinions.
Julie
-
I'm an advocate of finding one's own ground on how one creates an image rather than finding the middle ground from others' opinions.
Julie
Hi Julie - Yes I totally agree, you should do what you want to do and not what others tell you to do. But having said that and already having gone all the way down the HDR road myself before realising, that in terms of photographic longevity, that traditional looking images, are going to be around as long as photography is around, wheras HDR is a transient (albeit very popular) fashion and even though this type of image can be very pleasing in the short term, I just do not see HDR having the legs to remain so over time.
I mean we can all recite the names of famous photographers, but how many of us know the name of even one (if there is one) famous HDR photographer?
So my advice is yes go for it, HDR the hell out of it, but only as a way of getting it out of your system, so you can then concentrate on producing photographs that look like photographs.
But as I say, this is only my view of things and I do not want to start any kind of argument or discussion on the merits or otherwise of HDR, it is only my opinion based on my own experience and as such I post for you all, one of my HDR efforts from several years ago, for everyone to go "Ooh" and "Ahh" at, or alternatively bemoan the day that HDR was ever invented..
all the best and here it is:
Photobloke
-
Quote
I'm an advocate of finding one's own ground on how one creates an image rather than finding the middle ground from others' opinions.
Julie
He did put the photo up for critique so the comments are valid. :)
-
Hi Julie - Yes I totally agree, you should do what you want to do and not what others tell you to do.
In the end, you don't have much choice. As Elliott Erwitt pointed out: "You don't 'study' photography. You do it."
But having said that and already having gone all the way down the HDR road myself before realising, that in terms of photographic longevity, that traditional looking images, are going to be around as long as photography is around, wheras HDR is a transient (albeit very popular) fashion and even though this type of image can be very pleasing in the short term, I just do not see HDR having the legs to remain so over time.
I think it depends on the particular HDR, Bloke. A properly done HDR looks exactly like a "traditional looking" image. You only recognize it as an HDR if you know something about the process. But, of course, if you push the tone mapping beyond sensible limits it becomes the kind of HDR everyone has learned to hate.
-
I'm an advocate of finding one's own ground on how one creates an image rather than finding the middle ground from others' opinions.
Julie
Absolutely but you can not work in a vacuum without some sort of feedback from the audience of your work. Ultimately photography or art is an extension of your personality, your creative mind; it would be foolish to adapt your vision to someone else's opinions but out of all the comments you get a grasp of the impact of your work on the viewer.
-
Hi Julie - Yes I totally agree, you should do what you want to do and not what others tell you to do. But having said that and already having gone all the way down the HDR road myself before realising, that in terms of photographic longevity, that traditional looking images, are going to be around as long as photography is around, wheras HDR is a transient (albeit very popular) fashion and even though this type of image can be very pleasing in the short term, I just do not see HDR having the legs to remain so over time.
I mean we can all recite the names of famous photographers, but how many of us know the name of even one (if there is one) famous HDR photographer?
So my advice is yes go for it, HDR the hell out of it, but only as a way of getting it out of your system, so you can then concentrate on producing photographs that look like photographs.
Well to me HDR , Photoshop and all its filters, composites of multiple exposures etc are all just tools to get me where I want in terms of the vision I have for a particular photograph. Both Peter lik and David Hill manipulate their images heavily and they are both very famous. The problem with some of these tools is that they get abused by folks that are more interested in getting a psychedelic kick than to do serious work. When inkjet printers came out the same argument over the longevity and relevance of the work done in this new medium started; most photographers equated inkjets with snapshots printed on a “ nearly photographic “Lexmark printers. A photographer told me… is just ink; you will never get the tonalities of traditional darkroom process. We all know this is no longer true.
I visited a while ago Yosemite and in one of the books a famous critic called Ansel Adams and his work “unreal, manipulative and dark” and he predicted he was a fad and was going to disappear from the photographic arena not soon enough.
-
Quote
I'm an advocate of finding one's own ground on how one creates an image rather than finding the middle ground from others' opinions.
Julie
He did put the photo up for critique so the comments are valid. :)
Most definately the comments are valid. My response was to the statement which was made .."So I need to find middle ground maybe"... which implied that Andres was tailoring his images to meet the middle gound of public opinion.
-
Absolutely but you can not work in a vacuum without some sort of feedback from the audience of your work. Ultimately photography or art is an extension of your personality, your creative mind; it would be foolish to adapt your vision to someone else's opinions but out of all the comments you get a grasp of the impact of your work on the viewer.
Ah yes Andres, but there is a difference betweeen 'getting a grasp of the impact of your work on the viewer"... and ...."so I need to find a middle ground maybe", which I interpereted that you were adapting your vision to the middle ground of public opinion.
Julie
-
Julie, I don't think Andres or anyone else can find a "middle ground." Either you're shooting for a client, in which case his opinion of the work is all that matters, or you're shooting for yourself, in which case what anyone else thinks about it is nothing compared with its impact on you. I think Elliott Erwitt had the right idea. He'd go on a shoot for a client that put food on his table, but when he'd finished the day's grunt work he started shooting for himself. The finest part of his work is what he did for himself -- what he called "personal best." He once said something to the effect that he'd always been an amateur. Someone asked him how that could be since he made his living that way. He said, I love what I do. That's what amateur means.
-
Julie, I don't think Andres or anyone else can find a "middle ground." Either you're shooting for a client, in which case his opinion of the work is all that matters, or you're shooting for yourself, in which case what anyone else thinks about it is nothing compared with its impact on you. I think Elliott Erwitt had the right idea. He'd go on a shoot for a client that put food on his table, but when he'd finished the day's grunt work he started shooting for himself. The finest part of his work is what he did for himself -- what he called "personal best." He once said something to the effect that he'd always been an amateur. Someone asked him how that could be since he made his living that way. He said, I love what I do. That's what amateur means.
Yep, well said Russ. the bottom line is that you're either are influenced by others to opinions and adjust your work accordingly or you're not. If you choose to earn your bread and butter from your photography for the masses of opinion, there is no point in just producing images which don't sell.
It may also be said that there are those who earn their bread and butter and fame from their images and don't give two hoots about catering to others opinions - these of whom I'm pretty sure are in much smaller numbers.
Everyone makes choices about where they stand according to one's own priorities, but from my expereince, and as you have illustrated above using Elliot Erwitt as an example, there is something more powerful, strong, fine, authentic... about work which has come from an artist whose expression is done for oneself and has not been moulded or altered to cater to 'the middle ground' of opinion.
Julie
-
Julie, I don't think Andres or anyone else can find a "middle ground." Either you're shooting for a client, in which case his opinion of the work is all that matters, or you're shooting for yourself, in which case what anyone else thinks about it is nothing compared with its impact on you. I think Elliott Erwitt had the right idea. He'd go on a shoot for a client that put food on his table, but when he'd finished the day's grunt work he started shooting for himself. The finest part of his work is what he did for himself -- what he called "personal best." He once said something to the effect that he'd always been an amateur. Someone asked him how that could be since he made his living that way. He said, I love what I do. That's what amateur means.
Russ it is always a pleasure to read your posts since they have great references on photography and influential artits.
-
Yep, well said Russ. the bottom line is that you're either are influenced by others to opinions and adjust your work accordingly or you're not. If you choose to earn your bread and butter from your photography for the masses of opinion, there is no point in just producing images which don't sell.
It may also be said that there are those who earn their bread and butter and fame from their images and don't give two hoots about catering to others opinions - these of whom I'm pretty sure are in much smaller numbers.
Everyone makes choices about where they stand according to one's own priorities, but from my expereince, and as you have illustrated above using Elliot Erwitt as an example, there is something more powerful, strong, fine, authentic... about work which has come from an artist whose expression is done for oneself and has not been moulded or altered to cater to 'the middle ground' of opinion.
Julie
Julie I think I am able to find a “middle ground maybe” (Which seems to be the part you are stuck on) on the saturation of the photo, which seems to be the debatable point, without changing the essence and purpose of the photo. By now, having posted the photo on several forums, the picture has had several thousands hits and close to a hundred comments; most of them favorable or at least curious about the style. Yes, I had a gentleman telling me I went for the easy route with the lovely sunset and I should have done it the opposite direction and in black and white. Curiously, he also used the terms authentic and strong with courageous, as he referred to his version. Doing half of his suggestions with maybe a little of my initial post would have definitively be a compromise or “middle ground maybe” but backing of a tad the saturation hardly qualifies as a sell out or an unauthentic compromise with the initial work.
The great Fernando Botero got crushed in Italy when he first came out with his paintings of obese people, he did not change a thing ….except he moved away a bit from Colombian themes and made his paintings more universal; now he is one of the most recognizable painter in the world. Now he paints what he wants including many Colombian scenarios and nobody can call him unauthentic or weak. That would be naive.