Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: LesPalenik on September 18, 2013, 02:20:57 am

Title: Tree On A Hill
Post by: LesPalenik on September 18, 2013, 02:20:57 am
Thank you, Kevin, for posting your image and well documented workflow used to create it.
This is a great example of practical and effective image processing using simple and widely available plugins, if you know how to use your tools to get the most from them.
 
I'm looking forward to see here more post-processing recipes like this.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: JohnBrew on September 18, 2013, 06:57:06 am
I'm looking forward to see here more post-processing recipes like this.

I'm not. The result is overdone and heavy-handed, imo.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Kevin Raber on September 18, 2013, 07:38:38 am
As artists we make choices.  As the artist in this case I got a nice shot but it would never be a worthy image without extra work.  Yes, it was heavy handed and IMO it worked.  I took a bland image and made it work using the technique and tools described..  Now, the question that you have to ask and what I say in the article is it about the tree or the sky.  The point of the article though is that you have as an artist a set of tools that allows you to do things with a photograph that were not possible at one time.  I made a print from this image and I like it a lot and it continually gets positive comments.  Why, because it is different.

Kevin
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Jim Pascoe on September 18, 2013, 07:56:56 am
Hi Kevin

It is a very powerful image - the sky is amazing, and thank you for sharing your methods.  I have to say that for me the effect is a little strong.  The sky is overpowering the tree, and compositionally I find the tree needs to be the centre of attention.  The sky is just too unreal for my taste.  Interesting nonetheless.

Jim
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: David Eckels on September 18, 2013, 08:35:58 am
I have to say that for me the effect is a little strong.
I like it! Nice to see a man (or should I say a sky) after my own heart ;)
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Isaac on September 18, 2013, 12:34:59 pm
... IMO it worked. I took a bland image and made it work ...

I avoid asking others this kind-of question so it's more than a little unfair to ask you, but I don't intend it as a pointed question just curiousity -- What do you mean "it worked"?

You wrote - "I already knew how I would achieve the image I wanted" - but what did you want the image to achieve?

What is it that you the artist are trying to bring to your audience with that image? What do you think makes it "a masterpiece image?"
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: AFairley on September 18, 2013, 01:33:39 pm
I'm not. The result is overdone and heavy-handed, imo.

While I acknowledge that it's not particularly good form to slag someone who shares their efforts, I must agree.  Striking?  Yes.  Dramatic?  Yes.  Anything like the natural world?  No.  And that's the problem for me.  But to each his own.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: alainbriot on September 18, 2013, 02:08:22 pm
Great artwork, great essay!  I enjoyed both.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Kevin Raber on September 18, 2013, 05:02:19 pm
Thanks everyone for your feedback and thoughts. When I shot this image there was bright sky behind it with the kind of clouds you get on a humid hazy day. I knew I could use the method shared in the article to achieve a more dramatic sky.  This is part of being a photographer.  Knowing what you can do with an image both at the time of capture and later in post processing. If nothing else you should take away from this article that there are methods for manipulating and enhancing images.  Yes, in this case I took it to the extreme.  I had fun doing it and I have a number of folks who have liked this image enough to purchase it.  When I asked what they like, they in most cases say because it was different. While most of my images are accurate representations of what I see, there are times when accurate just won't work.  That's the time where I take liberty to play, have some fun and create something different.  By sharing the method to achieve this I hope you can see there are some pretty nice tools you can use to help your images along if you so choose.  You decide how far to take the image as you are the artist. 

Thanks for the feedback and I hope to share some other methods in the future. 

Kevin
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: AFairley on September 18, 2013, 05:22:22 pm
You decide how far to take the image as you are the artist.

Which is what it's all about in the end.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: LesPalenik on September 18, 2013, 11:26:09 pm
I'm not. The result is overdone and heavy-handed, imo.

If you read again my post, I wasn't commenting on the final result, just on the method.
As someone else pointed out, you can take it as far you want.

If you have some nifty tricks to share, please, feel free to post them. I would be looking forward to see them, too.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: TSJ1927 on September 18, 2013, 11:26:47 pm
"You decide how far to take the image as you are the artist."

Not really!
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: TSJ1927 on September 18, 2013, 11:40:15 pm
Because "Art (photography in this case) is not "anything goes"  Give this man a 10yr. supply of HDR & saturation.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Richowens on September 19, 2013, 12:24:00 am
Because "Art (photography in this case) is not "anything goes"  Give this man a 10yr. supply of HDR & saturation.

Who says, who made this rule? It is Kevin's photograph, despite what others think, and he can do whatever he wants with it.

Rich
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Schewe on September 19, 2013, 12:56:17 am
Because "Art (photography in this case) is not "anything goes"  Give this man a 10yr. supply of HDR & saturation.


Sorry bud...you lose.

Your small mind is showing...have you been to a major art gallery lately? Seen any great "art"?

Have you seen any real art that is less that "anything goes" that's worth a crap?

Art is exactly that, something that is rendered on paper or canvas that didn't actually exist in real life...because who the hell cares about real life?

The real reason Photoshop is so successful is because, well, reality sucks. Kevin took a shot and envisioned a totally different image than reality–that's the art part. If you can't get that, I think you need to go stand in the corner and think about it for a while (yes, that means you are in time out–shame on you).

Any putz can grab a shot of reality...only an artist can manipulate reality to serve their purpose. So, are you a putz? (hint, the indications are, you are...prove me wrong, go ahead, I dare ya :~)
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Isaac on September 19, 2013, 02:17:26 am
Any putz can grab a shot of reality, and any putz can manipulate that shot with PS, but only an artist can make us believe it was worth doing.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Schewe on September 19, 2013, 02:46:46 am
Any putz can grab a shot of reality, and any putz can manipulate that shot with PS, but only an artist can make us believe it was worth doing.

Yeah, OK...I think I agree...(although, I might suggest ducking)

Already read the book...

I think it would be useful to grok the results...

Duck now....(sorry, maybe  bit extreme...)
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Jim Pascoe on September 19, 2013, 03:44:11 am
Because "Art (photography in this case) is not "anything goes"  Give this man a 10yr. supply of HDR & saturation.

Of course it means anything goes.  Much as I find the picture overdone, that's just my taste.  I completely appreciate the fact that Kevin has chosen to represent the picture this way and it was useful to me in demonstrating a technique.  Just because it is some way from my taste in landscape photography doesn't mean it has no value as 'art'.  As Schewe says, have you been to an art gallery?  My lecturer at college used to say about art galleries - "Remember, you don't have to like everything".

Jim
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: knickerhawk on September 19, 2013, 09:25:40 am
I always get a chuckle out of criticisms of B&W renderings that are "unreal" or "overdone".  Seems to me you abandon any claims to reality the second you throw away the color.  And in today's world of color-by-default image rendering, it seems to me that your viewers understand from the get-go that any B&W rendering is not claiming to be realistic.

As for this particular image, I like it.  Bold and dramatic rendering of the clouds.  I like how the lonely tree is confronted by the ominous and dramatic clouds.  I also suspect that this particular rendering would work better in print than it does on screen.

Thanks for sharing your technique, Kevin.  I'm also a big fan of the NIK suite.

P.S. For the same reasons I accept the irreality of B&W and tolerate dramatically rendered B&Ws, I find the the Dolomites image to be overdone.  Its color rendering pushes any claim to reality too far.  It leaves an unresolved dissonance in viewers' minds about the possibility that the colors were really that dramatic in the scene.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Alan Smallbone on September 19, 2013, 09:44:17 am
I enjoyed the image and process behind it, thanks Kevin for that write up. Well done.

Alan
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: john beardsworth on September 19, 2013, 09:46:47 am
I always get a chuckle out of criticisms of B&W renderings that are "unreal" or "overdone".  Seems to me you abandon any claims to reality the second you throw away the color.  And in today's world of color-by-default image rendering, it seems to me that your viewers understand from the get-go that any B&W rendering is not claiming to be realistic.
Seems to me you abandon any claims to reality the second you make a still two-dimensional image? Viewers are smart enough to make the mental leap and see a believable representation.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: NancyP on September 19, 2013, 10:49:31 am
Thank you, Kevin, for your detailed workflow description, very useful and interesting to me, a post-processing novice and, aside from HDR Efex Pro 2, completely unfamiliar with the rest of the Nik package awaiting my click. BTW, I liked the B and W image because it is unusual and "overdone" - to my mind, all B and W photography / conversion can be subject to any amount of localized contrast and exposure manipulation, just as in the darkroom days. That's what makes it fun!
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: nutcracker on September 19, 2013, 11:31:54 am
Good work and very clear description of your approach before, during, and after setting the camera up Kevin.

It is always intriguing to see how a bunch of photographers can make images at the same time, from the same vantage point, of the same scene, and all come away with differing outcomes of what the (camera) sensor recorded and the (eye-brain) sensor perceived.

Kevin is a serious photographer who is fun to be with and learn from.

Anyone who has not been on a photographic adventure with Kevin Raber on the team, but has an opportunity of doing so should make the pilgrimage! Kevin enjoys working, and so will you.

Serious photography and fun/enjoying the lighter side of life are no :)t mutually exclusive!! 
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: R. Morris on September 19, 2013, 01:00:35 pm
What I find interesting is how many people post here (specifically to this thread) and betray themselves as folks who are not artists, and have no understanding of what a piece of art actually is.

Disagree with the artists vision as he realized it if you feel inclined, but to decalre an artists work "not art" only betrays you as a common "snapshooter".
By extension, to imply by ones words that the artist "isn't an artist" is the voice of the uninformed snapshooter.

These would be the same folks who apparently believe that the sky in "the artist" Ansel Adams Moonrise was actually pitch black that day  ::)
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: daws on September 19, 2013, 01:21:47 pm
I don't like the composition or the rendering of the photograph, but I appreciate the essay and have saved it in my increasingly bulging-at-the-seams "how to" folder.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Joe S on September 19, 2013, 01:29:47 pm

...because who the hell cares about real life?..... reality sucks.

So, are you a putz?

Any putz can grab a shot of reality...only an artist can manipulate reality to serve their purpose.


Interesting personal insights!

This is the unfortunate state of photoshop photography.    Have a boring image?   Just move the sliders to the right and make some "art".    Anyone can do it.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Marlyn on September 19, 2013, 02:06:05 pm
Saying An Artists interpretation is wrong, is like saying a personal opinion is Wrong.     

By definition, an impossibility. 


You may not like it,  it may not be your cup of tea, it may not be a "rendering of reality",   but it can't be 'wrong'. 

Personally, the result of the sky is a bit over-crunchy for my taste, but I'm sure it looks better on paper.   
However I appreciate the process and the lesson from Kevin. More the merrier !.

Regards

Mark.

PS: Kevin, I'll be bugging you for that C1 overview in Antartica that we missed in Svalbard !.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: David Eckels on September 19, 2013, 02:12:31 pm
You may not like it,  it may not be your cup of tea, it may not be a "rendering of reality",   but it can't be 'wrong'.
+1
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: AFairley on September 19, 2013, 02:26:10 pm
You may not like it,  it may not be your cup of tea, it may not be a "rendering of reality",   but it can't be 'wrong'. 

It can't be "wrong," but in my book it may not still be "art."  I can't tell you how many times I've walked into an art gallery and the only thing that's on the walls (or display stands, or in the installation) is a bunch of mental masturbation.  There's a lot of the emperor's new clothes floating around in the art world.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: HSway on September 19, 2013, 03:03:59 pm
I made a comment here about this topic
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=82304.20

but want to add that genuine sharing one’s technique and workflow (and own views of course) deserves respect and sincere 'thanks' above all. It’s naturally done easier among friends than among people too foreign. So it has to have two sides.
Then comes the other stuff.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: knickerhawk on September 19, 2013, 05:10:31 pm
It can't be "wrong," but in my book it may not still be "art."  I can't tell you how many times I've walked into an art gallery and the only thing that's on the walls (or display stands, or in the installation) is a bunch of mental masturbation.  There's a lot of the emperor's new clothes floating around in the art world.

Speaking of mental masturbation, a year ago I stopped into a gallery in Chelsea (NYC) and all there was to see were some slightly yellowish/off-white drip stains on the wall.  Want to take a wild guess about what those stains were from?  (Hint: look at what's bolded above.)
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: G* on September 20, 2013, 04:44:58 am
I won’t participate in the discussion about personal style or this pic being "art" or not. That’s of little use, I think.

But I would like to chime in that I think it’s very interesting to have a look at people’s workflows. So, thanks a lot for this post and please encourage others to follow the example.

I have two question, though.

First: Why didn’t you pick one of the brighter exposures in CO? You had to drag the levels slider heavily to get an evenly distributed histogram. I would guess that you could use a shot of +2 to +3 EV from the D800E instead – without losing any highlights. Now, with the levels adjustment, you got yourself some noise in the darks that is really not necessary.

And second: Why did you use ISO 400 (if I see that correctly). You wrote that you worked from a tripod. Although not a lot, but again you are begging for noise and reduced dynamic range.
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Jeffery Salter on September 22, 2013, 08:38:02 pm
Kevin,

Thanks for sharing your workflow on your "Tree on the hill" image.  I have only recently invested in the Nik plugins.  They are indeed time savers which quickly get you to the point where your mind can simply focus on creating a visual statement.  Glad you mentioned "layers".  Once the overall look is created with the various plug-ins Its a great to have the option to put a layer mask on the layer.  Giving you a chance to to even more fine tune the image by use of the paint brush and opacity settings.

Regards,
Jeffery




Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Philmar on September 23, 2013, 10:18:57 am
Kevin,

Thanks for sharing your workflow on your "Tree on the hill" image. It is the kick in the pants I needed. I purchased the NIK package shortly after it went on sale several months ago but I have not used it very often. Perhaps because I haven't bothered to find any instructions on how to use the software. I find LR gets me where I want with B&W, mono- and duo-tone conversions with the help of presets I downloaded and saved. I have tried Viveza but find that I can do what i want with more flexibility and ease (probably because I know how the program works) with LR adjustment brushes. I have been using the NIK HDR Efex a lot as I get better and quicker results than LR and it's sliders.
I get the impression that the NIK tools might help speed up my RAW conversion process if I knew how to use them to the extent that I am currently able to use LR.

To all of the NIK software lovers I ask you: where are the best free online resources on how to best use the NIK tools?
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: stamper on September 23, 2013, 10:22:08 am
To all of the NIK software lovers I ask you: where are the best free online resources on how to best use the NIK tool   

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plug-Nik-Photographers-Creating-Software/dp/0321839773/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379946100&sr=1-1&keywords=plug+in+with+nik
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Alan Smallbone on September 23, 2013, 12:52:46 pm

To all of the NIK software lovers I ask you: where are the best free online resources on how to best use the NIK tools?

NIK has a lot of tutorials for each of the plugins on Youtube. Go to the "Learn" and select a plugin and click on videos.

Alan
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: Philmar on September 23, 2013, 05:35:09 pm
thanks stamper
thanks Alan!!!
Title: Re: Tree On A Hill
Post by: LesPalenik on September 24, 2013, 01:40:34 am
Quote
the result of the sky is a bit over-crunchy for my taste, but I'm sure it looks better on paper. 

Very good point. Anything designed for printing will appear overdone on screen.