Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: JohnBrew on January 09, 2014, 02:09:32 pm

Title: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: JohnBrew on January 09, 2014, 02:09:32 pm
Thank you, Kevin for this helpful write-up. I don't use a digital back, merely a D800, but I have always had problems re-producing sunsets in pp as I saw them. I'm glad I'm not the only one! However, I don't use Capture One, I use ACR. I would like to see a similar article for those of us who use ACR. Could I suggest an addendum to the original article? (perhaps by someone who does use Adobe?)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Jeffery Salter on January 10, 2014, 08:50:01 am
Thank you Kevin.  I'm supposed to be editing an image for work now, however your excellent tutorial on how you interpreted your photograph and used C1 to finalize your vision was too good to wait for later to read.

Is there a way to adjust the shape or shape dynamics of the mask brush?  It's circular can it be made into an oval.

I did have a question about the tint slider as well.  Or rather a comment.  It would be nice to have some type of visual reminder on the tab itself  to know which way to go for the warm tones / cool tones. (I realize you can simply move the slider and look at the screen as well...)

It's great to able to do the layer masks at the raw level.  When I do my adjustment layers in Adobe CC, the file size can get rather immense fairly rapidly.

Thanks again for sharing.  Now back to my deadline....

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: DaveCurtis on January 10, 2014, 05:31:17 pm
Kevin, great tutorial.

I use Lightroom so rather nice to see to see the C1 work flow.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ContarexMan on January 10, 2014, 05:41:01 pm
Death Valley Sunset story. When does a 'camera' photo stop being a photo and become a 'software' painting.  ???
Photos: fact or fiction. When does the Sunset become the dawn of fiction. Just questions in the WIND.
Best to all,
ContarexMan
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Jeffery Salter on January 10, 2014, 06:20:03 pm
Somewhere on YouTube or netflixs is a great documentary on Ansel Adams.  It's very enjoyable.  And a during the interview with Ansel, he says something like "the negative is the score and the print is the performance".

We are all free to interpret our digital files (with one caveat, photojournalists should thread lightly in that area) as we see fit.  That doesn't mean that a viewer will appreciate the results.  However it's fun to see how other artists work.  The visual language is quite complex it certainly informs my vision when some share their workflow. From "A" to "Z" from a 16bt raw file to a beautiful 40 x 60.  Bravo. My take away from Kevin's image is that I have added a few new tools to my visual tool kit.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Tony Jay on January 10, 2014, 07:47:19 pm
Death Valley Sunset story. When does a 'camera' photo stop being a photo and become a 'software' painting.  ???
Photos: fact or fiction. When does the Sunset become the dawn of fiction. Just questions in the WIND.
Kevin makes it pretty clear that he edited the image based on what he saw and experienced when he shot it.
In some respects the final result may be more documentary than the initial RAW image straight out of the camera.
I have absolutely no issue with his interpretation especially since he makes the motive for his interpretation so clear.
The only other question that remains is whether one likes the final result.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jasonchickerson on January 10, 2014, 08:30:39 pm
I agree. It looks to me like this image was recorded ten minutes too late and overworked in post to compensate. The end looks ridiculously garish, the kind of thing that many amateurs attempt to emulate from calendars.

I'd like to see a 50 or 25% pixels crop to see what's actually going on here. At the size published with the article, it looks pretty terrible.

[BTW, this isn't my first post but it seems my account was deleted. It has been a few months since I last posted.]
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rand47 on January 10, 2014, 08:37:17 pm
I think we all have a threshold for how far is too far to push (interpret) a file.  I guess sometimes it is best to just, "Ignore the man behind the curtain..." and enjoy the image.  

[Cynicism alert]
I also see a potential business here, kind of a photographic "paint by the numbers" enterprise.  One shoots all the iconic locations with high quality equipment and assembles various packages of RAW files to sell to "photographers" so that they may bring "their vision" to the image without the hassle and expense of actually "going there!" [\Cynicism alert]  ;D

Neither of these observations are directed at Kevin - merely spawned from his excellent tutorial and my own pixel mangling efforts.  I AM one of those who sincerely believes that any interpretation of the data is legitimate, and an expression of the artists vision.  But I do have angst on occasion.   ;D

Rand

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: MarkH2 on January 10, 2014, 10:41:20 pm
Bravo, Kevin, well done!  "... my vision ... the way my mind wants to see it as well as the way I did see it."  The creative tension, and in the end true to yourself.  What more can we ask?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 11, 2014, 05:04:13 am
"my art", "how I saw it", "having fun" - all well and good and all entirely subjective. But what does it tell the viewer? What is the point of this photograph?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 11, 2014, 02:06:48 pm
What is the point of this photograph?

It's nice to look at. You want more?

Jeremy
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 11, 2014, 02:29:23 pm
Though I personally have a taste which prefers a bit less saturation in general,
which might also be due to my European background
(it appears color taste between Europe and the Americas is a bit different due to cultural influence),
I think this is a great tutorial and a very fine sunset image.
'Nuff said.

Keep on Raberizing !

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: MarkL on January 11, 2014, 02:39:21 pm
Reminds me of: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/the_making_of_the_pilbara_storm.shtml

If you missed the shot or it wasn't that great to start with move on and try again rather than try and make it something it wasn't - "my vision" is a copout. Shots like this are what has caused people to perpetually ask "was it photoshopped?" whenever they see a dramatic landscape photograph.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 11, 2014, 03:42:12 pm
Reminds me of: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/the_making_of_the_pilbara_storm.shtml

If you missed the shot or it wasn't that great to start with move on and try again rather than try and make it something it wasn't - "my vision" is a copout. Shots like this are what has caused people to perpetually ask "was it photoshopped?" whenever they see a dramatic landscape photograph.

Honestly I think thats completely a matter of taste.
So - you might blame Kevin having a bad taste - I strongly believe he could live with that.
I actually prefer him using software to express his vision rather than burning protected nature sites as done by other well known photographers.
If you don't like the results thats totally okay.
I personally think that great light can never be replaced with anything done in postprocessing.
But good postprocessing can create spectacular stuff out of a not so great basic image and enhance or emphasize aspects that are already there but not visible on the first look.
Pictorialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism) is a legit artistic decision.

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Schewe on January 11, 2014, 06:04:46 pm
Kevin makes it pretty clear that he edited the image based on what he saw and experienced when he shot it.

Actually, I don't think that's what Kevin "saw". Why am I sure? I was there and I saw what Kevin saw and what we saw was better depicted in the original raw file. I would argue that Kev's processing represented what he "wished" he saw that nite, not what was actually there. Which is perfectly fine from my point of view...Kev doesn't so much try to document what was there but to push what was there to something more special. And that approach is called "Rabereyes" and if you think I'm kidding, ask Kev what his final "Rabereyes" logo will look like :~)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 11, 2014, 07:23:06 pm
Another somewhat hilarious discussion.
Since pictorialism began to gather steam with William Newton, speaking at the Photographic Society of London in 1853, denouncing the glut of detail produced by "chemical photography" and the art critic Henri de la Blanchère saying "the less machine, the more art" in 1859, there has been this split between the romantic individualists on the one hand emphasising art as personal expression and on the other hand the rational naturalists viewing art as an objective study of nature. A bit of a simplification I know, but let's not get into radical subjectiveness or modern idealism!
How is it that it is forbidden to do what makes you happy?
I am reminded of one of my photographic heroines, Julia Margaret Cameron. After her two one-woman shows in 1866 and 1868,  Henry Peach Robinson hypocritically wrote of her work "if studies in light and shade only are required, let these be done in pigment or charcoal, with a mop if necessary..."
Cameron had already rebutted Robinson's outrageous critique, writing in 1864: "What is focus - and who has a right to say what focus is the legitimate focus?" Go Julia! Kick him in the balls.
Nice article and image Kevin. On my screen the photograph comes up a bit overdone for my taste, but I think in print it would be a different matter.
David
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Tony Jay on January 11, 2014, 09:31:02 pm
...but people will stop trusting what you say...
Credibility is in the eye of beholder - true.
Perhaps if you posted some of your work we could see where you are coming from and we could calibrate your critiques based on your work and the motives behind them.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 11, 2014, 09:54:13 pm
Credibility is in the eye of beholder - true.
Perhaps if you posted some of your work we could see where you are coming from and we could calibrate your critiques based on your work and the motives behind them.

Tony Jay
Hi Tony. A fair comment.
If I may add to "It isn't forbidden to say something looked like such-and-such if it didn't -- but people will stop trusting what you say", what has that got to do with this thread? For myself I am replying in the context of Kevin's final note:
"I tend to like my images a bit saturated with some punch. As the artist, that is my vision and using these tools allows me to merge the best of both worlds: the way my mind wants to see it as well as the way I did see it."
It may not be your approach, but I can't see that there is anything to argue about that.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Tony Jay on January 11, 2014, 09:58:04 pm
Thanks for the reply David.
For the record my comment was directed toward Isaac.
I have had the pleasure of seeing some of your work, on this forum and elsewhere, and so have a fair idea of where you are coming from when you are commenting or critiquing.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 11, 2014, 10:18:47 pm
For the record my comment was directed toward Isaac.


So was mine.  :)

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on January 12, 2014, 06:17:27 am
Thanks for the tutorial, and the image is wonderful. For someone like me, who has learned slide film with Velvia, this is the kind of photo I enjoy. Why limit ourselves with reality? Photography is not reality, reality is boring, move on...
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 12, 2014, 06:51:05 am
Kevin makes the following comment about the initial appearance of the RAW image in Capture One.

Quote
This image was a result of shooting with Daylight White Balance with the camera compensating for the warm colors in the image.

I sometimes notice a similar effect myself when shooting sunsets. The impressive red/yellow glow, which inspired one to take the shot, sometimes seems to have lost its vibrancy in the unadjusted image. This is not because I've taken the shot too late, after the sunset is over. In fact, sometimes after one thinks the sunset is over one can get the most intense color effects. I recall situations when I've packed my camera away to depart from the scene, assuming the sunset is over, then have quickly retrieved my camera from the bag because the sky suddenly turns a bright red.

However, it's interesting that Jeff Schewe has a different recollection of the scene. It's my understanding that the eye/brain will always tend to compensate for colors it sees. A white shirt will tend to appear white to the brain in different lighting. Snow will tend to appear white whether in sunlight or the shade, but the camera's White Balance might render the snow in the shade distinctly blue, and so on.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 12, 2014, 01:42:56 pm
However, it's interesting that Jeff Schewe has a different recollection of the scene. It's my understanding that the eye/brain will always tend to compensate for colors it sees. A white shirt will tend to appear white to the brain in different lighting. Snow will tend to appear white whether in sunlight or the shade, but the camera's White Balance might render the snow in the shade distinctly blue, and so on.

Sunset colours across a shaded snowscape with bright mountain peak reflections in a lake or river are interesting -- delight in the deep blue / rose colour contrast, or fake the experience of grayer low-light vision and color constancy whitened snow.

Similarly, rev-up a sunset by looking into shaded foreground for some minutes, and then looking back at the sunset sky.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 12, 2014, 01:55:45 pm
My experience with sunsets is that colour (if there is any) will peak approximately 15 minutes after the recorded time of sunset.  "Civil Twilight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_twilight#Civil_twilight

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: BrianWJH on January 12, 2014, 10:59:20 pm
My experience with sunsets is that colour (if there is any) will peak approximately 15 minutes after the recorded time of sunset.  "Civil Twilight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_twilight#Civil_twilight



Yep, spot on, one location where I often capture some vivid sunsets with the sun receding over a distant mountain range is popular for tourists and other occasional snappers, they will arrive just before sunset then shoot away until the sun sinks over the range and depart hastily thereafter, the real show if atmospherics are right will be as you say 15 to 30 minutes after the sun has gone.

Brian.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ron ritcher on January 13, 2014, 01:22:57 am
Credibility is in the eye of beholder - true.
Perhaps if you posted some of your work we could see where you are coming from and we could calibrate your critiques based on your work and the motives behind them.

Tony Jay


Tony,

I feel you are off-base with you challenge to post work.  One's WORDS will (hopefully) tell "where we're coming from," and whether or not we even CAN produce images that reflect our aesthetic is irrelevant.  And your use of the term "motives" is bothersome as well; the spirit of this forum has always been one of honest give-and take, the sharing of (often) differing perspectives, and the desire to continue learning.  You seem to imply that the earlier poster must have been up to no-good.

Art, from my very limited experience, seems to be messy, unruly, and full of contradictions -- leaving plenty of room for widely-opposing points of view.  And last time I checked, no gallery curator ever demanded that patrons bring in a sample of their own art before critiquing a collection.

Ron
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 13, 2014, 03:26:58 am
Hello  Ron.
I may be reading too much into your post, but without taking sides too much I don't think Tony Jay's comments are over the top, and I have no doubt at all that Isaac has the where-with-all to give as good as he takes in this forum if he felt it was going too far.   ;)
There have been several calls on this forum for Isaac to post images, and it is entirely up to him to decide when/if he is comfortable with that. For example, some folks are more interested in a more academic approach to photography rather than a practical one, and I have no problem with that, though I may quietly tease them a little. It is not done maliciously. I don't know whether Isaac falls into this category or not.
The point I take from this is that people are interested in a person's approach to their work and thus their approach to discussions here. After all, a few pictures say more than a whole heap of posts. I would be horrified if anyone used a forum member's work as a basis for personal criticism, but on the other hand I too am interested in what motivates us as human beings.
May I also add from my perspective, that though I may not always agree with them, both Tony and Isaac have always been gentlemen.
David

Edit: I seem to be in a pink and fluffy be-nice-to-people mood lately. I blame it on my switch to Fuji. I've been uncharacteristically cheerful.
Perhaps I should go back to Canon?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: lelouarn on January 13, 2014, 05:48:33 am
I am curious about the "the camera settings ate my nice sunset colors" idea. I have seen this myself, you can "get rid" of those nice colors of a sunset by neutralizing the white balance.

What I don't understand, is do cameras have a setting where white balance is not touched, i.e. a WB setting which is faithful to the light that was there, as recorded by the CMOS sensor, without interpretation / free parameter called WB ?

I understand that most of the time, being able to set the WB is enormously useful. Usually, one wants to apply a white balance because our eyes / brain interprets a scene. So in a Tungsten light, we don't see a white fabric yellow, because our brain knows it's white, so we correct the yellowness of the light and "see" a white fabric even in yellow light. This is why we need to adjust WB, so our pictures look like what the brain "sees".
But how do I do, if I want to show the colors as they were, without compensation for what our brain thinks it should see? So some kind of neutral WB. Actually even "no WB" at all. Why do we need to set the WB in a situation like this ? Can the camera just not show the amount of Red Green and Blue as they were recorded, without interpretation ?

I am sure I am missing something here, because all cameras have a WB setting, and it doesn't seem to be possible to "not have a WB".
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2014, 06:40:41 am
My experience with sunsets is that colour (if there is any) will peak approximately 15 minutes after the recorded time of sunset.  "Civil Twilight"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_twilight#Civil_twilight


Isn't Wikipedia wonderful! I hope you donate during their fund-raising periods.  ;)

I recall when I first noticed that the sky on the inside of a rainbow was noticeably lighter than the sky on the outside of the bow, in the processed the images, I thought that maybe the cause was a camera white balance issue.
However, Wikipedia has informed me that this is a normal weather pattern. This is an example of my eye/brain not noticing something in reality which the camera has later made apparent. There is some truth in the adage that the camera doesn't lie. But it's not true that it never lies.  ;)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2014, 06:46:36 am
Hello  Ron.
I may be reading too much into your post, but without taking sides too much I don't think Tony Jay's comments are over the top, and I have no doubt at all that Isaac has the where-with-all to give as good as he takes in this forum if he felt it was going too far.   ;)
There have been several calls on this forum for Isaac to post images, and it is entirely up to him to decide when/if he is comfortable with that. For example, some folks are more interested in a more academic approach to photography rather than a practical one, and I have no problem with that, though I may quietly tease them a little. It is not done maliciously. I don't know whether Isaac falls into this category or not.
The point I take from this is that people are interested in a person's approach to their work and thus their approach to discussions here. After all, a few pictures say more than a whole heap of posts. I would be horrified if anyone used a forum member's work as a basis for personal criticism, but on the other hand I too am interested in what motivates us as human beings.
May I also add from my perspective, that though I may not always agree with them, both Tony and Isaac have always been gentlemen.
David

Edit: I seem to be in a pink and fluffy be-nice-to-people mood lately. I blame it on my switch to Fuji. I've been uncharacteristically cheerful.
Perhaps I should go back to Canon?

This is an interesting discussion in its own right, which perhaps deserves a separate thread. I recall a few years ago on this forum, I received similar criticism after I was critical of issues such as blown highlights on the submitted images of other forum members.
But those were the days when the forum did not allow images to be posted if one didn't have one's own website.

The site has now developed so that anyone can post an image that exists on their hard drive, although such images can be seen only by those who are logged on to the site.

Usually when I now post an image, it is to demonstrate a particular technical point, or to have a bit of fun in posting something that is a bit unconventional. I have no desire to post an image in search of approval, hoping that it will get rave comments describing it as wonderful.

Isaac's comment, "It isn't forbidden to say something looked like such-and-such if it didn't -- but people will stop trusting what you say." gives a hint that Isaac is perhaps a bit worried that, if he does a post one of his own images, and forum members think it is a bit ordinary, they might cease to give credence to his views.

There are other forum members in a similar situation. BJL for example is very knoweldgeable on photographic technical matters, but never posts an image of his own.
This is unfortunate, but understandable. It's equivalent to someone, before believing what one says, asking if one has a Ph.D in the subject.

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 13, 2014, 07:47:04 am
This is an interesting discussion in its own right, which perhaps deserves a separate thread. I recall a few years ago on this forum, I received similar criticism after I was critical of issues such as blown highlights on the submitted images of other forum members.
But those were the days when the forum did not allow images to be posted if one didn't have one's own website.

The site has now developed so that anyone can post an image that exists on their hard drive, although such images can be seen only by those who are logged on to the site.

Usually when I now post an image, it is to demonstrate a particular technical point, or to have a bit of fun in posting something that is a bit unconventional. I have no desire to post an image in search of approval, hoping that it will get rave comments describing it as wonderful.

Isaac's comment, "It isn't forbidden to say something looked like such-and-such if it didn't -- but people will stop trusting what you say." gives a hint that Isaac is perhaps a bit worried that, if he does a post one of his own images, and forum members think it is a bit ordinary, they might cease to give credence to his views.

There are other forum members in a similar situation. BJL for example is very knoweldgeable on photographic technical matters, but never posts an image of his own.
This is unfortunate, but understandable. It's equivalent to someone, before believing what one says, asking if one has a Ph.D in the subject.




Haven't you got this one ass from elbow, Ray?

It's the theoreticians amongst us who need to display their credentials; this is a forum about photographs, not about an abstract science.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Manoli on January 13, 2014, 08:13:17 am
This is an interesting discussion in its own right, which perhaps deserves a separate thread.

+1
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Manoli on January 13, 2014, 08:32:25 am
…  this is a forum about photographs, ...

… and I thought this was a forum about photography.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ndevlin on January 13, 2014, 08:47:08 am
I am curious about the "the camera settings ate my nice sunset colors" idea. I have seen this myself, you can "get rid" of those nice colors of a sunset by neutralizing the white balance.

What I don't understand, is do cameras have a setting where white balance is not touched, i.e. a WB setting which is faithful to the light that was there, as recorded by the CMOS sensor, without interpretation / free parameter called WB ?

Lelouran,

Good question. This goes to one of the core differences between RAW and jpeg. White Balance ["WB"] is nothing more than the camera's best *guess* at what colour temperature (a) existed when the shot was take and (b) the photographer wanted.  It is a fancy way of saying, "in this scene, what is white/grey/neutral?"      

In RAW, the camera stores this WB as a number attached to the file. Because the RAW file is raw, it is just a series of values read off every sensor.  Nothing has been done to that data.

In your RAW converter, the software reads that number - think of it like a recipe sent home by the grocer with the food on a separate piece of paper - and then applies that information to decide how to convert and interpret the colour data coming off the sensor. (This is a massive over simplification).  But basically, you can follow 'the note', or do whatever you like, because the note was simply a suggestion, and the raw ingredients (the data) has not been touched.

Because 'correct' WB is by default thought of as daylight (about 5600 degrees kelvin), the converter will interpret the colour data to try to make things look like the scene was lit by daylight.  

In turn, because daylight is much 'cooler' (ie: less light on the yellow/orange end of the light spectrum) than sunset or sunrise, a sunset photo converted in this way will look bland and washed-out, because the software has interpreted the scene as having much less yellow/orange light than was actually there.  

This, in a nutshell, is why most basic workflows *start* with a neutralized or boring conversion of a sunset.

In Raw processing, we can simply change the way in which the data is interpreted, by changing the WB or colour temp settings.  Either warmer or cooler, until we get the colour rendition we like best.

With in-camera jpegs, all of this is done by the camera, according to whatever WB has been set on the camera at the time of taking. If you tell it it's a sunset, it will make the picture warmer.  However, because the processing is done, what you get is the camera's interpretation of the colour in the scene, with much less ability to change that after the fact.

The recipe has already been applied to the food, if you will follow my earlier analogy.

Hope that gets at your question.

Cheers,

- N.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: lelouarn on January 13, 2014, 08:58:47 am
Thanks Nick, I think it does partly answer my question.
But imagine I want to be a forensic landscape photographer. Imagine I do not want to interpret the scene in a pleasing way, but rather be as objective as possible, and just "measure" the scene in a picture. So I do not want to inject the WB into the equation. Why can I not do this, why MUST there be a white balance (whether it's through the RAW WB setting or cooked into the JPEG) ?

I suspect this has to do with the fact that you need to take out the color response of the CMOS (or CCD). For example, the CMOS is much more sensitive to the red (than to the blue) and if you don't do this correction, then the image really looks funky (i.e. completely red, with the blue almost completely black). And I assume this correction depends on the input spectrum, i.e. the color of light illuminating the scene. So you MUST input this externally to the CMOS image - lower the red, so that the blue has a chance of being seen.

But perhaps there is another reason ?

Sorry from deviating this thread from Kevin's nice picture to the fundamentals of why we MUST white balance a shot...
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 13, 2014, 09:27:48 am
… and I thought this was a forum about photography.



Manoli, without photographs there is no photography.

Anyone can read a book and recite; today, they don't even need a book - five minutes on the Internet and they can answer or contribute to anything at the end of those few minutes...

Give a choice between someone with a PhD in the thing and someone with a couple of years of work experience, there's little doubt where the greater value would be found. And in case it's missed: the work experienced guy would get my vote. Photography is about the doing, not the theorizing though of course, I do accept that a huge industry has self-spawned itself onto the edges of the fabric of the petticoat tails. We need a friggin ' huge washing machine with lots of detergent.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 13, 2014, 10:06:03 am
Thanks Nick, I think it does partly answer my question.
But imagine I want to be a forensic landscape photographer. Imagine I do not want to interpret the scene in a pleasing way, but rather be as objective as possible, and just "measure" the scene in a picture. So I do not want to inject the WB into the equation. Why can I not do this, why MUST there be a white balance (whether it's through the RAW WB setting or cooked into the JPEG) ?

I suspect this has to do with the fact that you need to take out the color response of the CMOS (or CCD). For example, the CMOS is much more sensitive to the red (than to the blue) and if you don't do this correction, then the image really looks funky (i.e. completely red, with the blue almost completely black). And I assume this correction depends on the input spectrum, i.e. the color of light illuminating the scene. So you MUST input this externally to the CMOS image - lower the red, so that the blue has a chance of being seen.

But perhaps there is another reason ?

Sorry from deviating this thread from Kevin's nice picture to the fundamentals of why we MUST white balance a shot...


The question you must answer for yourself is:

What is color?

-- It is not the distribution of wavelength/intensities.
-- it is not any sort of tristimulus value.
-- instead it is a subjective sensation, a quale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/qualia), which greatly depends on your past learning. E.g. a friend of J. W. v. Goethe (who was not only a poet, but also an early color scientist and theoretician), wrote to his friend Goethe about how he started to see color contrasts after having learned about these from Goethe in a talk they had and that the world looked different to him now.

So - looking for any means to get the color right is chasing a nonexistent magical bullet. Your eye can see a white sheet of paper as white under any light condition. But also you have a feeling about the color of light if learned to look at it. So - the eye does color balance, but only to a certain extent.

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Manoli on January 13, 2014, 02:21:17 pm
Rob,
Apologies, tempus fugit (and slightly off topic), but briefly ..

… without photographs there is no photography.

Isn't it the other way round ? Without photography there would be no photographs

five minutes on the Internet and they can answer or contribute to anything

But not necessarily with any wisdom or expertise. Said expertise not necessarily being evidenced by, nor dependent on, the photographs he/she produces.  Like it or not, software, technique and methodology have become an integral part of attaining that final print. Discussions, opinions and personal experiences as to 'best practice' have all contributed to furthering individual endeavours and, on this site at least, said contributions have come from all quarters.

Give a choice between someone with a PhD in the thing and someone with a couple of years of work experience, there's little doubt where the greater value would be found.

I'm not sure they're necessarily mutually exclusive.

I do accept that a huge industry has self-spawned itself onto the edges of the fabric of the petticoat tails.

Unfortunately, the 'industry' has become rife with opportunists and self-styled experts. But there is a world of difference between those seeking undeserved financial reward ( scamologists ) and those who contribute generously, for no material gain, for the greater good.  And, on this site, there have been quite a few of the latter.


All best,
M

ps
On the value of critique, or sterility thereof, have a look at this post :
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84827.msg686590#msg686590


Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ndevlin on January 13, 2014, 02:53:25 pm
...So I do not want to inject the WB into the equation. Why can I not do this, why MUST there be a white balance (whether it's through the RAW WB setting or cooked into the JPEG) ?

It's not a question of "must be" a WB...there simply *IS* a white balance to every image.  It is a base-point that defines what colour-value within the information provided by the camera = white or grey.  

Colour is completely relative as it comes out of the camera. Because the camera knows neither the temperature of the light hitting the subject, nor the 'colour' of the subject, the numbers in from the sensor mean nothing until your processing algorythm is told where to place grey.  All the other colour values are then determined by reference to that point.

The only question is where that value comes from.

- N.

ps. I've never really understood the concept of 'forensic' landscape. Steve Johnson (who I am rather fond of) is a big believer in this, but I don't get it. Who gives a shit what this dumb piece of desert looks like? I can look that up on Google streetview. It's much more interesting to see what others interpret it to be.  Remember, there is actually no absolute truth that what it looks like, either.  I suspect Yosemite would look quite different to your cat - perhaps in ways we can't even comprehend or express.  
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 13, 2014, 02:56:47 pm
A helpful discussion on white balance. I've always thought that because of the way our eyes and brain works, the decision on what is neutral in an image cannot be objective.
And I've learned a new word- quale. Cool.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 13, 2014, 03:18:19 pm

Manoli, without photographs there is no photography.

Anyone can read a book and recite; today, they don't even need a book - five minutes on the Internet and they can answer or contribute to anything at the end of those few minutes...

Give a choice between someone with a PhD in the thing and someone with a couple of years of work experience, there's little doubt where the greater value would be found. And in case it's missed: the work experienced guy would get my vote. Photography is about the doing, not the theorizing though of course, I do accept that a huge industry has self-spawned itself onto the edges of the fabric of the petticoat tails. We need a friggin ' huge washing machine with lots of detergent.

;-)

Rob C

We want to know whether someone can walk the talk or whether they are "all talk and no trousers". I don't see anything wrong with that. It's not that we expect technically knowledgeable people to be great photographers, but we would like to know whether they are competent ones and have any ideas  of their own.
Ignoring for the moment those few hateful individuals who show great competency as soon as they pick up a camera, most of us spend a long time just getting exposure, focus and composition to our satisfaction. We've started off like a small child who has put their poo on the table and said "look what I've done Mummy!"  As much as I enjoy post-processing, there's the the problem with those folks who have focussed on software to the detriment of other skills - they spend their life polishing turds. I don't want to get my camera work and print making to the "next level" - wretched term - just good enough to express my ideas.
On the other hand I'm uncomfortable with anyone posting images out of a need to prove something.
I can't see that it will do anyone any good, I'd rather cut them some slack. I agree with Manoli that it doesn't have to be an either/or.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 13, 2014, 03:25:11 pm
Just created an Insta-Haiku especially for this thread:


   The monk   sitting still on a rock
   The monkey sitting still on a rock
   The       difference       remains


Best wishes
~Chris
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 13, 2014, 03:38:04 pm
Isn't Wikipedia wonderful! I hope you donate during their fund-raising periods.  ;)

It is and I do.  Recently, even. : )
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: hubell on January 13, 2014, 03:49:22 pm
The Death Valley Sunset photo is very unappealing to me. I find it lurid. However, if that Kevin's art, so be it. He should and does feel free to interpret the photo in whatever way he wants. There is no absolute truth here.
It's interesting how the aesthetics of color photography in general and color landcape photography in particular have evolved with the use of digital imaging tools as compared to film and chemical darkroom printing. With the latter, the predominant medium for prints was Type C prints, which usually looked washed out and failed to convey the drama of great light and color in the landscape. The holy grail was being able to achieve that. Cibachrome and Velvia were the tools of choice. It was not easy to go over the top with saturation and contrast. We now have the opposite problem with digital. It is so easy to go over the top that few know where to stop. Moreover, what is difficult now with digital is the opposite. Try replicating the restrained color palette of a Type C print from a color negative film.  Twenty five years ago, I was not so attracted to that color palette. Now, I find it beautiful. Joel Meyerowitz' Cape Light work is a great example. It's much harder to produce that aesthetic than dialing up the saturation control on the computer.
Jeff Schewe is right. When photographers say that they are preparing a file for a print so that it corresponds to the way they remember the scene, what they really mean is the way they would "like" to remember the scene. Nothing wrong with that, but nobody really has an accurate memory about the way the light and color of a landscape looked six months ago.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 13, 2014, 04:52:12 pm
The mention of Ciba sent a shiver up my spine: I absolutely dreaded using it!

Printing onto normal Kodak colour paper didn't send shivers up my spine. I did it professionally for long enough. The problem with colour printing was the average, commercial colour labs: they had a cut-off point where further colour testing lost them money, and so they didn't go that extra step. When I did it, it was for an in-house industrial unit and money meant nothing - it was a service unit. And a godsend for learning the trade. I owe that place pretty much everything. We never found colour printing looked weak: it could be - had to be - extremely accurate: colour meant and represented temperatures on jet flame tubes, of which we photographed many.

With colour photography, as with black/white, you got what you were willing to strive to get. The tools were pretty damned good - it was some of the people that were not.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2014, 09:56:02 pm

Haven't you got this one ass from elbow, Ray?

It's the theoreticians amongst us who need to display their credentials; this is a forum about photographs, not about an abstract science.

Rob C

Rob,
I've never considered photography to be an abstract science, but a practical, hands-on science. I discovered the existence of this forum many years ago, indirectly as a result of my having technical difficulties in getting my newly acquired Epson A3+ printer to produce the colors I saw on my monitor.

I rang the Epson technical help service to complain and to find a solution. They explained to me that color management was a very complicated affair and that it would be better for me to get help from certain photography forums, citing Luminous Landscape as one of the best. It was good advice, and I've learned a lot from this site.

Now my analogy about the need for a PhD in a subject before one has credibility, was perhaps not the best analogy. The point I was trying to get across is that the public at large tends to unthinkingly accept something as true, by association, when the the credentials, achievements, displays of work, and so on, from the person making the comment, are impressive.

Famous photographers are often sought by the manufacturers of cameras for the purpose of advertising their products, because there is an association in the mind of the public at large that the type of camera used to take impressive photos has a lot to do with the appeal of the photos. If one doesn't know much about the technical side of cameras, then perhaps one can do no better than buy the same camera used by a photographer whose work one admires.
Of course those of us who are perceptive understand that it's the person behind the camera who counts for more than the equipment. Nevertheless, this unthinking association in the minds of many folks is fully exploited by the advertising industry.

I can only surmise that those members of the forum who never post any images of their own, but who are very vocal on technical matters, and/or aesthetic matters, are a bit worried about this mindless association prevalent in the public at large and how it will affect their credibility if their photos are not as highly regarded as their technical expertise or insights on aestheticism. To this extent I sympathize with them.

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: lelouarn on January 14, 2014, 03:13:24 am
Sorry to be solid, but there are two sides to this WB business. I understand the artistic and perception related side. So I agree that there must be degree of freedom to adjust the WB to obtain a pleasing picture. I just don't understand where the WB comes in.

The sensor reads R,G,B values from pixels. So that's a color. Why can this color not be used - or even seen by the user ? One could imaging that the sensor is calibrated (to take out the different transmissions of the color filters, and the quantum efficiency of the detector for different colors). But perhaps this calibration needs a color temperature to be done properly ? I would have naively said that one would calibrate in white light, and normalize the R,G,B values read off the sensor to the same value (for white light, one expects R=G=B, if the camera's sensor and color filters are normalized). But perhaps that doesn't work ?

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2014, 03:57:27 am

I can only surmise that those members of the forum who never post any images of their own, but who are very vocal on technical matters, and/or aesthetic matters, are a bit worried about this mindless association prevalent in the public at large and how it will affect their credibility if their photos are not as highly regarded as their technical expertise or insights on aestheticism. To this extent I sympathize with them.





And that's exactly the point: the 'public' has every right to think their verbal wanderings more than a little suspect. If they can't put up, then the honourable alternative is to...

Personally, I'd far rather there be fewer posters here, but better ones, just as I'd rather hear Annie L, personally, on photography than some much vaunted curator or gallerista whose sole purpose in life is to shift goods that might as well be boxes of toilet paper. Not that I imply the art is toilet paper but that the systematic movement off the shelves (or walls in this case) is common practice and purpose to both forms of shopkeeper, the seller of other people's art or the manager of the supermarket on the corner.

So yes, I do think that if unwillingness to show work is there, a reason has to exist. In my own case, some years ago, despite having spent my life running a reasonably okay photographic operation, I hadn't a clue how to make a website. Then, Frenchman in Madrid Fred took pity and on me and put me in contact with Weebly and the problem was solved, as much to my own peace of mind as to that of anyone else. And why did it bother me? Precisely because of the real and understandable credibility gap that invisibility produces. Today, producing a website should, for the 'experts' that seem to proliferate here, be not a problem at all. So why be shy? False modesty perchance?

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 14, 2014, 06:51:28 am

Today, producing a website should, for the 'experts' that seem to proliferate here, be not a problem at all. So why be shy? False modesty perchance?

Rob C


Rob,
For me, it's not just a matter of producing a website. It's the time and work of selecting the best images and organising them for display. I imagine it would also take time to maintain the website and answer queries. Some of my images go back 50 years. I have many thousands of images.

At the moment, for example, I've begun spending a lot of time scanning old negatives, some of which are my own, going back 50 years, and some of which were my father's, going back about 90 years.

One has only so much time and one has to prioritize to maximize one's enjoyment of the relatively few years one has left on this earth. I wouldn't want the chore of producing 'prints on demand' to interfere with my travels, for example, so that's a job I would have to allocate to someone else.

Nevertheless, creating my own website is a task I might eventually get around to completing.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ndevlin on January 14, 2014, 09:53:43 am
I just don't understand where the WB comes in.

The sensor reads R,G,B values from pixels. So that's a color. Why can this color not be used - or even seen by the user ?

It can be seen. But what colour it is depends on what colour light was illuminating the subject.  WB is telling the camera what that colour was. Orange light on a grey card will produce orange.  So you have a choice: have an orange grey, tell the camera to WB for orange light and get a grey greycard, or tell it to do something completely different for artistic effect.

- N.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 14, 2014, 10:49:35 am


And that's exactly the point: the 'public' has every right to think their verbal wanderings more than a little suspect. If they can't put up, then the honourable alternative is to...

[...]

So yes, I do think that if unwillingness to show work is there, a reason has to exist.

[...]

Rob C

So ... one only has the right to comment on something at which one personally excels ? Surely a person's words stand on their own, just as much as a person's photographs stand on their own. Somebody may be good at analysing and discussing the work of others without being able to produce good works themselves.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2014, 10:59:44 am
So ... one only has the right to comment on something at which one personally excels ? Surely a person's words stand on their own, just as much as a person's photographs stand on their own. Somebody may be good at analysing and discussing the work of others without being able to produce good works themselves.




That would  be a neat trick!

Hence the variation on the old adage: those who can, do; those who can't tell all the others how to do it better. There are lots of examples of the latter... Wouldn't you be delighted if your dentist subscribed to the very same ethic!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 14, 2014, 12:37:22 pm



That would  be a neat trick!

Hence the variation on the old adage: those who can, do; those who can't tell all the others how to do it better. There are lots of examples of the latter... Wouldn't you be delighted if your dentist subscribed to the very same ethic!

;-)

Rob C
So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on January 14, 2014, 01:46:02 pm
So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

On this subject, perhaps this is relevant -

*****
Prefacing a somewhat derogatory criticism of Milton, T. S. Eliot once stated that “the only jury of judgement” that he would accept on his views was that “of the ablest poetical practitioners of his time.” Ten years later, perhaps in a more mellow mood, he added: “the scholar and the practitioner, in the field of literary criticism, should supplement each others’ work. The criticism of the practitioner will be all the better, certainly, if he is not wholly destitute of scholarship; and the criticism of the scholar will be all the better if he has some experience of the difficulties of writing verse.”
*****

From -

http://www.parrikar.org/essays/shakespeare-newton-beethoven/

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2014, 01:51:19 pm
So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

Reduction to the absurd. Let's stick with good old photography, about which at least one of knows something. But regarding journalists in general: no, I trust them as far as the politics of their next employer.

Strangely, I've not yet needed to consult the opinions of others when wondering about whether I have, should have, or should have not enjoyed an experience such as a jazz concert or a rock'n'roll show. As for photographic exhibitions, those that I've actually bothered going to see have usually been quite rewarding, with the exception of one by Robert Mapplethorpe's bro'. Outstanding was one by Don McCullin many years ago - fantastically moving, foggy Indian images - and I also had my eyebrows raised somewhat by a Helmut Newton exhibition. A David Bailey one was marginally spoiled by prints in less than perfect condition, and the feeling that only the 'iconics' such as Jagger in furs were pushed... As for Sam Haskins, a delightful slide show where I was able to ask questions. In no case did I attend on anyone's recommendation: my own nose took me there, but for the Haskins's event, which was by invitation. Oh yes, I also saw one with a lot of Patrick Lichfield's colour work, including a most memorable beauty from a Unipart, featuring a lady doing her 'injun' number out on the wastes at Zabriskie Point.  Can't remember where that was - for some reason I think that Kodak had something to do with the show.

In all the above instances, I went because I respected and really admired the snappers, and the odd one out was because I happened to be in the neighbourhood at the time. It's always rewarding to see the work of folks that one is familiar with from magazines, books and calendars. Rewarding, of course, if one already knows what those people are about and it impresses one sufficiently to overcome inertia and/or the need to do something else...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 01:54:28 pm
Who cares about relevance!

“A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools.” Thucydides.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 02:02:26 pm
I understand the artistic and perception related side.

The "perception related side" doesn't seem to have a straightforward story, so I'm quite confident I don't really understand that.


The sensor reads R,G,B values from pixels. So that's a color.

No, that's RGB. The Myth of Universal Colour (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/).

Quote
'The most critical part of the formal definition of color to keep in mind is that it is an “attribute of visual perception”—a description of color appearance to human observers.'

pdf "Charting Color from the Eye of the Beholder (http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/PAP21.pdf)" A reprint from American Scientist, 2005.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 02:15:39 pm
... your challenge to post work.  One's WORDS will (hopefully) tell "where we're coming from," and whether or not we even CAN produce images that reflect our aesthetic is irrelevant. ...

Also known as. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 14, 2014, 02:48:58 pm
Somebody may be good at analysing and discussing the work of others without being able to produce good works themselves.

"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem. They know what to do; they've seen it done every day; they're just unable to do it themselves."

Brendan Behan
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 03:03:13 pm
Also known as. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

Or as some more of this logical crap (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy).
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 03:13:07 pm
No, I presume that because a fallacy has been made that claim can be dismissed and a better reasoned claim sought.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 03:15:00 pm
No, I presume that because a fallacy has been made that claim can be dismissed and a better reasoned claim sought.

You are totally right as usual.
Still too many words and too little images.
Seriously.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 03:20:22 pm
Jeff Schewe is right. When photographers say that they are preparing a file for a print so that it corresponds to the way they remember the scene, what they really mean is the way they would "like" to remember the scene. Nothing wrong with that, but nobody really has an accurate memory about the way the light and color of a landscape looked six months ago.

Do you think people have an accurate memory about the way the color looked 6 hours ago? How about 6 minutes ago?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 03:22:44 pm
For you there's Flickr :-)

Whatever that means.
And as usual you are totally right, etc ...
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 03:29:03 pm
Nothing to be puzzled about -- if you wish to see photos look at a photo sharing site.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Never thought of that.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 03:32:02 pm
Don't be too concerned, you aren't the only one ;-)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 03:36:35 pm
Don't be too concerned, you aren't the only one ;-)

What a relief!
And I thought ...
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Peter_DL on January 14, 2014, 03:56:52 pm
Sorry to be solid, but there are two sides to this WB business. I understand the artistic and perception related side. So I agree that there must be degree of freedom to adjust the WB to obtain a pleasing picture. I just don't understand where the WB comes in.

The sensor reads R,G,B values from pixels. So that's a color. Why can this color not be used - or even seen by the user ?

Sure it can be seen, but it makes an ugly green image - unless under fancy light conditions
(or with a magenta filter in front of the lens). See UniWB (http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/664/what-is-universal-white-balance-uniwb), or here (http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm).

I would have naively said that one would calibrate in white light, and normalize the R,G,B values read off the sensor to the same value (for white light, one expects R=G=B, if the camera's sensor and color filters are normalized). But perhaps that doesn't work ?

Sure it works. Click-whitebalance in the Raw converter e.g. on the second gray (white) of the known ColorChecker chart will furnish you with an own calibration / preset in terms of Color Temparature and Tint for the corresponding light e.g. noon Daylight.

For a sunset shot, I'd start to look for a pleasing WB setting rigth in-between auto-whitebal and the Daylight preset as described
(probably more at the Daylight side).

Certainly a discussion on its own.

Peter

--

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: hubell on January 14, 2014, 04:00:57 pm
This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 14, 2014, 04:09:36 pm
This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]

Maybe most people simply try to obscure they're just trying to have fun.
Which is not the worst to do in art. ;)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: David Sutton on January 14, 2014, 04:39:11 pm
So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I pay attention firstly to those commentators/critics who obviously know their subject deeply and can articulate their thoughts. And then secondly to those who are able to articulate their position. Meaning the influences that brought them to their current place in the political or social spectrum, for want of better words. “This is where I stand and why I stand here”.
So no, you don't have to be a practitioner to be a contributor, but you'd better have other skills to make up for that if you are going to be taken seriously.

Edit: Just changed my mind.  ::)
I firstly pay attention to critics/commentators who are in love with their subject. Robert Hughes and Kenneth Clark come to mind.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 14, 2014, 04:41:24 pm
This is why I find it so comical when Photographer X waxes poetically how he tries to replicate in his prints what he saw when he pressed the shutter. Even funnier is when he says that he tries to replicate what he "felt", and the photograph is totally over the top in contrast and saturation. Sort of scary if that's what he actually saw. [G]


And the most scary of all: the guy who believes the other guy who told him that it's possible to show character in a portrait.

What bloody tosh! You can't do it, and if you catch the Annie L documentary - Life through a Lens - she and others tell you that and why it can't be done. Believe them, they are correct; I know because I've often tried to do just that and still can't hack it. Nobody has. Ever. It's the Golden Holy Grail. It's why we try. It's the photographic Everest Plus.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 14, 2014, 05:48:41 pm
Reduction to the absurd. Let's stick with good old photography, about which at least one of knows something.

Rob C
And one of us - but apparently only one - knows what "reductio ad absurdum" means.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 14, 2014, 09:27:45 pm
fwiw

Quote
Our sense of colour is so sensitive that we can distinguish many millions of different colours. However, we cannot remember these differences. That is, if two colours are not shown simultaneously, our ability to distinguish them diminishes dramatically. It is probable that we normally remember only a few colours, for example the eleven focal colours ... However, under certain conditions, up to thirty can be remembered ... and with training it is possible to remember and distinguish up to fifty different colours. Remembered colours also tend to be more saturated (that is more intense) than they actually were...

page 21 The Colour Image Processing Handbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=oEsZiCt5VOAC), 1998
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ed B on January 14, 2014, 09:41:07 pm
So you don't trust any theatre critics, sports commentators, political analysts etc., until they have produced their own Broadway show, or won Wimbledon, or run a country?

Not really. The best sports analysts are generally the guys who have played the game. When it comes to movie critics, I never listen to what they have to say, I'd rather be my own judge when it comes to what entertains me. And when it comes to politics, ha! Not sure if you live in the States but politics here is a complete joke. Wait, strike that, I don't want to turn this into a political debate.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: LesPalenik on January 14, 2014, 10:07:06 pm
Once you start making improvements and intensifying colors, it can become an addition. Same as with plastic surgery improvements. Some take it too far.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: michael ellis on January 14, 2014, 11:08:53 pm
Thanks Nick, I think it does partly answer my question.
But imagine I want to be a forensic landscape photographer. Imagine I do not want to interpret the scene in a pleasing way, but rather be as objective as possible, and just "measure" the scene in a picture. So I do not want to inject the WB into the equation. Why can I not do this, why MUST there be a white balance (whether it's through the RAW WB setting or cooked into the JPEG) ?

I suspect this has to do with the fact that you need to take out the color response of the CMOS (or CCD). For example, the CMOS is much more sensitive to the red (than to the blue) and if you don't do this correction, then the image really looks funky (i.e. completely red, with the blue almost completely black). And I assume this correction depends on the input spectrum, i.e. the color of light illuminating the scene. So you MUST input this externally to the CMOS image - lower the red, so that the blue has a chance of being seen.

But perhaps there is another reason ?

Sorry from deviating this thread from Kevin's nice picture to the fundamentals of why we MUST white balance a shot...

I think you should be able to set up a white card so that it is lit by the light from the sunset, then with the proper tool you could measure the color temperature of the light and then set your white balance to that.

Michael
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ron ritcher on January 15, 2014, 01:37:02 am
Also known as. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

Geez . . . quite hiding behind that Cliff Notes logic-link, will you?  And while you're at it, do you mind telling me, in you own words please, just what about my comment you could dismiss so flippantly?  Again, my point was that whether or not I can or will share photographic samples shouldn't disqualify me from offering opinions and even suggestions to posters on this forum.  Feel free to disagree (as a few have already), but just where's the fallacy?

And my small bone to pick with Tony came in the wake of his essentially calling you out.  Now, I realize that coming to your aid doesn't, in itself, lend any credence to my argument, but it strikes me odd that you'd so-easily try and kick a defender under the bus.

And to Kevin (and many others): forgive my digression, if you will . . .

Ron
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 15, 2014, 03:00:01 am
I don't see a problem here. One takes a shot of a sunset presumably because one finds the moment impressive, unusual, wondrous, dazzling, attention-grabbing, spectacular, awe inspiring and so on.

As one processes the image, one hopes to recreate that emotional experience which inspired one to take the shot in the first instance. If one errs on the side of excessive vibrancy, so what!

If the image is for scientific purposes, or for ordinary practical purposes such as displaying the various shades of Dulux paint for sale in the hardware shop, then accuracy is required because customers might complain if the color of the paint in the tin is noticeably different from the advertised shade in the brochure.

I like the attached sunset shot because the cloud formation looks a bit like a dragon. if I were to make a print of this image, I'd title it, "The Fiery Dragon".

Anyone who infringes my copyright on this image will be eaten by the fiery dragon, so be warned.  ;D
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 15, 2014, 03:13:20 am
Geez . . . quite hiding behind that Cliff Notes logic-link, will you?  And while you're at it, do you mind telling me, in you own words please, just what about my comment you could dismiss so flippantly?

The error you identified in Tony Jay's challenge is also-known-as the genetic fallacy. The very same fallacy listed at that "Cliff Notes logic-link".

So, a re-iteration of your comment rather than a dismissal of your comment.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rhossydd on January 15, 2014, 04:04:52 am
If one errs on the side of excessive vibrancy, so what!
There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing whatever you like to your photographs.
I think the reason that the photo (and it's style) has created so much comment is that it's on the front page of Lula.

Until recently LuLa has been a bastion of 'straight' photography, not just landscape, but also street and wildlife, overall probably best summed up as documentary travel photography.
Michael's own work has always been a paragon of good taste, restraint and impeccable technical standards. An elegant and sophisticated style of photography where post production has been done with the lightest of hands to gently enhance, rather than radically change what was in front of the camera.
That approach and philosophy drew us to the site and those values have kept us here. Together with a very high standard of technical discussion in the forums, in keeping with the ethos of aiming for the highest possible standards.

What we're seeing now Lula has a new publisher is a less restrained style of content where anything goes. You want brash bright colours ? come in I'll show you how. Want to know how to get good prints ? read our tutorials they'll sell you the right software.
Michael, it would appear, is less 'hands on' with the content here since his illness, which is quite understandable, so under new stewardship Lula is changing and becoming more commercial. Some people won't like that.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 15, 2014, 04:10:15 am
And one of us - but apparently only one - knows what "reductio ad absurdum" means.

But that's not what I wrote: I wrote something quite else, in English, indicating that you had reduced the discussion to an absurd level of comparisons. So yes, indirectly and despìte your best efforts, you were actually quite right about one of us knowing something - if perhaps not what you'd hoped.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 15, 2014, 06:19:56 am
But that's not what I wrote: I wrote something quite else, in English, indicating that you had reduced the discussion to an absurd level of comparisons. So yes, indirectly and despìte your best efforts, you were actually quite right about one of us knowing something - if perhaps not what you'd hoped.

;-)

Rob C
My comparisons were simply a logical consequence of your own statements. If you now find them absurd, well .... if the cap fits ...
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: leeonmaui on January 15, 2014, 07:15:11 am
Aloha (I guess, but I"m not really feeling it),

So me and my buddies are hauling but down the road, On some mega photo shoot workshop thing, we have like a half a million dollars worth of the most sophisticated camera gear available in the universe in our van, and it's like; crap we haven't done anything all day accept BS about our bad ass gear. Self how did i get hear, this isn't my beautiful location, this isn't my beautiful sunset! This isn't my beautiful foreground element; Christ what have I done! People like orange right? OK that's what I'll do!

If the author is working to take the luminous out of the Luminous landscape and replace it with "f$*k it I'll make something up in post; this example goes along way way in advancing this philosophy.

I can remember once reading an article on this site, and really I could not tell you who wrote it and what it was really trying to tell me about. The subject was somehow connected print making, and how this guy was really good at it. It was the IMAGE that impacted me, a mostly subdued image except that a white fence had caught the light and offered this amazing contrast as it ran perfectly through his composition. Yes there were a bunch of images of what he did in nix, Lightroom, CS3 or whatever, and charts and graphs as he got the image ready to print. As a stand alone unaltered image, it was pretty Great. Getting it ready to print the artist showed us how he wanted to enhance the Luminous element of the fence to ensure that his Impression of what he saw and what the camera was able to capture, worked in balance and to his advantage in the final print. But the essence of what he was able to get on the camera was not altered only enhanced slightly. The impact and guts of the work had very little to do with something manufactured on the computer, and everything to do with light, understanding. experience, intuition, hard work and patience.
The article was an inspiration, not an invitation to meritocracy.
 
The final image was an idealization, not a fabrication. It was art, it was excellent photography.
I don't have a problem with idealizing something in a photograph, or using whatever means you as an artist feel necessary to create impactful effective work.
Your work is your work, it is what you keep close to your heart, and choose to share as a piece of that.

But please don't tell us that the camera, especially a 50,000 dollar camera system failed you.

One more thing before I finish;
Please stop the using Ansel Adams "the negative is the score, and the print is the symphony" quote as an excuse, metaphorically speaking; to photograph an image of a solo street violinist, and end up making a print from that photograph; that looks like the New york Philharmonic orchestra performing at the Carnegie Hall. In the context of who he was, how he worked and how he felt, this is completely wrong.   

My two cents,
Lee Rylee
Honolulu, Hawaii 
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: dchew on January 15, 2014, 07:45:56 am
It is interesting to me where this thread has gone. I was at this PODAS. We were driving back from Beatty. As we crested the pass that opens to the valley we saw some very exciting clouds that looked to be ripe for a good sunset. At this point the light had not peaked, but things were changing fast. We stumbled out of the cars as fast as we could. Here is an image taken soon after we pulled over, several minutes before peak light.

(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/DChew_110406_0857_Podas.jpg)

Next is an image taken probably within a minute of Kevin's. My interpretation of the colors are a bit cooler than Kevin's, but you can see the similarities. After the sunset we were all very excited from the experience. I have not been to Death Valley many times, but it seems to me dramatic clouds like this are rare there. We talked and raved about this sunset the whole evening and throughout the following days. For those skiers in the group, it felt like the perfect powder day at your favorite dream resort. Beautiful light, beautiful location, the right timing, all while being on a workshop. The Perfect Storm, if you will.

(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/DChew_110406_0876_Podas.jpg)

So, a few comments:
Kevin did not make up these colors in his minds eye from what was otherwise a bland sunset.

We did not miss or arrive after the peak light of sunset. Sure we had to work fast, and if I had been there an hour earlier I would have scouted a more interesting foreground. But some posts seem to infer Kevin made color adjustments from pure fabrication, speculation or imagination with no mental link to an event he saw. That is not the case. Of course in my opinion he is free to do that, but I’m just making the point that is not what was done here.

I processed these two images several weeks after I got back. His article is the first time I saw his image. Although his color is warmer and, yes, a bit more Raberized, our interpretations of the clouds are remarkably close.


Ciao,

Dave
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 15, 2014, 08:28:54 am
My comparisons were simply a logical consequence of your own statements. If you now find them absurd, well .... if the cap fits ...

Yes, you should indeed wear it. Hope it's not too uncomfortable for you!

;.)

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 15, 2014, 09:46:40 am
It is interesting to me where this thread has gone. I was at this PODAS. We were driving back from Beatty. As we crested the pass that opens to the valley we saw some very exciting clouds that looked to be ripe for a good sunset. At this point the light had not peaked, but things were changing fast. We stumbled out of the cars as fast as we could. Here is an image taken soon after we pulled over, several minutes before peak light.

Next is an image taken probably within a minute of Kevin's. My interpretation of the colors are a bit cooler than Kevin's, but you can see the similarities. After the sunset we were all very excited from the experience. I have not been to Death Valley many times, but it seems to me dramatic clouds like this are rare there. We talked and raved about this sunset the whole evening and throughout the following days. For those skiers in the group, it felt like the perfect powder day at your favorite dream resort. Beautiful light, beautiful location, the right timing, all while being on a workshop. The Perfect Storm, if you will.

So, a few comments:
Kevin did not make up these colors in his minds eye from what was otherwise a bland sunset.

We did not miss or arrive after the peak light of sunset. Sure we had to work fast, and if I had been there an hour earlier I would have scouted a more interesting foreground. But some posts seem to infer Kevin made color adjustments from pure fabrication, speculation or imagination with no mental link to an event he saw. That is not the case. Of course in my opinion he is free to do that, but I’m just making the point that is not what was done here.

I processed these two images several weeks after I got back. His article is the first time I saw his image. Although his color is warmer and, yes, a bit more Raberized, our interpretations of the clouds are remarkably close.


Ciao,

Dave

Good to see someone posting images. However on my monitor I get a sense of too much blue and magenta for a sunset. Is it my monitor which is out of calibration?
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: dchew on January 15, 2014, 10:06:07 am
Good to see someone posting images. However on my monitor I get a sense of too much blue and magenta for a sunset. Is it my monitor which is out of calibration?

I don't think either of our monitors are out of calibration. I agree my image has a lot of blue and magenta. I remember that evening as the light was changing, commenting to one of the other attendees about the crazy mix of blue, orange and magenta. So that is what I am trying to get across, although I lost the orange somewhere along the way. Kevin didn't :)

We all interpret these things differently, which I think is part of the point. I know I've experienced sunsets that have intense blues and magentas, especially at higher altitudes and dry air. In my memory this was one of those, although we obviously were not that high...

Dave
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Petrus on January 15, 2014, 10:39:58 am
Lelouran,

Good question. This goes to one of the core differences between RAW and jpeg. White Balance ["WB"] is nothing more than the camera's best *guess* at what colour temperature (a) existed when the shot was take and (b) the photographer wanted.  It is a fancy way of saying, "in this scene, what is white/grey/neutral?"  

Bit late to the game, but anyway: This actually describes AUTO WB mode of the camera. That can "eat" the colors in the picture, as it interprets overly orange clouds as very warm light and lowers the WB accordingly turning the clouds bluer (when shooting RAW this can be fixed in post, as previously explained). However, if the camera is set at daylight WB, usually 5600 Kelvin, the clouds would turn out more or less as the photographer saw them.

You can test this easily by selecting different WB presets in the RAW converter for the same file, and if you had shot the frame with Auto WB, choosing the "as shot" option you can see how close the camera's analysis of the scene came to yours.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Kevin Raber on January 15, 2014, 10:42:46 am
Certainly has been an interesting discussion.  The point of the article was to show how to take an image and fix it. (if you’d want to call it that). I lead a lot of workshops and see attendees face challenges of fixing images that have not come out exactly like they would like to see them on import into their RAW processor.  The article showed how to use tools of a RAW processor to recover or tune an image, as well as some post tools that are available.  Whether you agree or disagree with how I made the image is not so much the point as how it was done.   I am surprised at how many people don’t realize they can make these kind of changes to their RAW files.  My goal was to help readers understand what can be done.  Based on the number of private emails I have received I believe it helped some. 

There is no right or wrong in photography or art.  I see a lot of work of photographers and I love some and not so love others.  I see photographers who really pump up saturation and contrast as well as I see others who don’t touch the contrast or saturation sliders. I know photographers that shoot with iPhones and use a half dozen apps to do things to every images they take.  There are photographers who shoot only HDR.  Everyone of these photographers is happy with their work and what they have created. 

For me photography is a passion and a joy.  It has been since I was a kid.  I believe it should be for all of us.  We are all free to adapt the tools and techniques to make images the way we want.  Photography is in a great place now.  There are so many great cameras.  There are great software products and there are so many choices of papers to print images on.  We can also share our images with the world now unlike any other time.

In the meantime we owe it to ourselves to share techniques and methods to reach the final image. In the end it is the photographer who decides what their image will look like and which techniques and methods they want to use.

Enjoy!

Kevin Raber
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: jeremyrh on January 15, 2014, 10:49:34 am
Yes, you should indeed wear it. Hope it's not too uncomfortable for you!

;.)

Rob C
Rob - grow up, FFS, you're starting to sound like Pee-wee Herman - "I'm rubber and you're glue".
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Remo Nonaz on January 15, 2014, 01:07:39 pm
About two years ago I had the pleasure to stand in about the same spot where the van pulled over, and took some photos for myself. The attached photo, like Kevin's, is pretty heavily worked on - cropped, significant clarity bump and, of course, converted to black and white. As a black and white, I suspect some would give me a pass on the heavy-handed adjustments I made. I'm not sure why this is such a sin in a color photo.

Do I think Kevin's image is over the top? Sure, but it is beautiful; nice picture. I'd be very proud of it and I appreciate his sharing his process.  
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: nma on January 15, 2014, 02:05:33 pm
When we shot film we had our choice, Ektar, Velvia, etc.  Each had its own characteristics with respect to color.  Some of us thought Velvia garish.  Whatever. As a practical matter we just took what the photoengineers gave us. Now, it is some software engineers that set the default appearance in the raw converter. It is an attempt to give an average raw conversion. It would seem that some are arguing that your photo should fit the default. Others are, in effect, arguing that landscape photography is documentary. Some say anything goes.

In my photography, I typically try to express my response to the scene when I render the photograph in the raw converter. Good taste in processing the image is important. But it is my expression, it is why I do photography.
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 15, 2014, 03:32:44 pm
Rob - grow up, FFS, you're starting to sound like Pee-wee Herman - "I'm rubber and you're glue".



I hate these kindergarten games.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: ron ritcher on January 15, 2014, 06:11:15 pm
The error you identified in Tony Jay's challenge is also-known-as the genetic fallacy. The very same fallacy listed at that "Cliff Notes logic-link".

So, a re-iteration of your comment rather than a dismissal of your comment.

Isaac,

Thank-you for the clarification. Now, I'll check my ego at the door, re-check my bp, and get back to something productive, like . . . well, maybe some photography even!  Interesting thread(s), though . . .

Ron
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Dave Millier on January 19, 2014, 09:07:47 am
Character is a rather complex thing so of course you are right, it can't (intrinsically) be done. But you can capture caricature.  For example the former soccer player turned actor Vinnie Jones was known as a footballing thug and typecast as playing violent characters in movies. So a portrait that captured an aggressive, violent looking Vinnie would be fully showing caricature.


And the most scary of all: the guy who believes the other guy who told him that it's possible to show character in a portrait.

What bloody tosh! You can't do it, and if you catch the Annie L documentary - Life through a Lens - she and others tell you that and why it can't be done. Believe them, they are correct; I know because I've often tried to do just that and still can't hack it. Nobody has. Ever. It's the Golden Holy Grail. It's why we try. It's the photographic Everest Plus.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2014, 09:39:27 am
And of course we have that memorable portrait of Winston Churchill by Karsh, which conveys the impression that Churchill was a bit of a bulldog.  ;)

Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Isaac on January 19, 2014, 11:53:07 am
For example the former soccer player turned actor Vinnie Jones... (http://www.icongallery.sg/images/sports/football/big/gascoigne-signed-print-with-vinnie-jones.jpg)
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Rob C on January 19, 2014, 03:36:29 pm
And of course we have that memorable portrait of Winston Churchill by Karsh, which conveys the impression that Churchill was a bit of a bulldog.  ;)






There's the rub: we assume the attitudes and makeup of the bulldog because that's what reputation taught us.

Remove the identity and myth, and you are faced with a slightly over-processed portrait of a somewhat fat old man with quite a degree of degeneration writ large.

The production suits purpose because we have this well-established characterisation provided along with the visual. We didn't start with a cipher. Had Winnie just been the local vicar, looked like that and was shown like that, heads would probably have rolled, and Mr Karsh might not have been paid.

Rob C
Title: Re: Death Valley Sunset
Post by: Dave Millier on February 28, 2014, 06:50:15 pm
It can't be often that you get photos of a Winnie and a Vinnie in the space of 3 posts on LuLa....






There's the rub: we assume the attitudes and makeup of the bulldog because that's what reputation taught us.

Remove the identity and myth, and you are faced with a slightly over-processed portrait of a somewhat fat old man with quite a degree of degeneration writ large.

The production suits purpose because we have this well-established characterisation provided along with the visual. We didn't start with a cipher. Had Winnie just been the local vicar, looked like that and was shown like that, heads would probably have rolled, and Mr Karsh might not have been paid.

Rob C