Subtlety

[David Eckels]

Got tired of processing my Europe photos and thought I'd try to work on subtlety...with some fantastic clouds we had last night. This was stitched from three shots with the Nikon 1 v2, f/1.8 18.5 mm, saved as a 32-bit tiff then worked lightly (get it? ) in LR5. Did I succeed or is it once again, "over the top?" If over processed, I despair that subtlety may not be my nature!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think it is over the top. I may want a bit more shadow detail and a bit more foreground, maybe.

Best regards
Erik

Got tired of processing my Europe photos and thought I'd try to work on subtlety...with some fantastic clouds we had last night. This was stitched from three shots with the Nikon 1 v2, f/1.8 18.5 mm, saved as a 32-bit tiff then worked lightly (get it? ) in LR5. Did I succeed or is it once again, "over the top?" If over processed, I despair that subtlety may not be my nature!

[francois]

I find it slightly overdone especially the saturation of the yellows... but I'm the first to agree that it's very personal.

[David Eckels]

I find it slightly overdone especially the saturation of the yellows... but I'm the first to agree that it's very personal.

No, HERE's pumped up yellow and WB Same evening.

[PeterAit]

On the one hand, I applaud you for presenting a lovely scene without "jazzing it up"too much. On the other hand, I do believe I see a hint of processing in the clouds. Not that processing is bad, of course, but it should be totally invisible - at least that's how I approach it.

[David Eckels]

On the one hand, I applaud you for presenting a lovely scene without "jazzing it up"too much. On the other hand, I do believe I see a hint of processing in the clouds. Not that processing is bad, of course, but it should be totally invisible - at least that's how I approach it.

Good point Peter. I guess what I am getting at is where that "threshold of invisibility" lies within each artist's sense of aesthetic. I find this very difficult, but I get lots of good feedback here and I don't expect it to come easy. I wonder if this really is something more intuitive rather than a rule like "No LR adjustments beyond 20" to be applied. From the photos posted here in LuLa land, I think there's a lot o great intuition out there! Russ Lewis has said many times, study the great photographers and I think I have to do more of that, but there are some great photographers here and I can "talk" to them! Most of all, I have to keep shooting and searching for that elusive "perfect" capture. And THEN avoid cocking it up in PP!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I see the relevance of the title of your post more as a not-so-subtle hint to your potential critics as to the expected nature of their critique?

[David Eckels]

I see the relevance of the title of your post more as a not-so-subtle hint to your potential critics as to the expected nature of their critique?

Cute...and funny, too! But actually, I really WAS trying to apply some subtle PP. And even if it was a "not so subtle hint" it proves my point

[PeterAit]

Good point Peter. I guess what I am getting at is where that "threshold of invisibility" lies within each artist's sense of aesthetic. I find this very difficult, but I get lots of good feedback here and I don't expect it to come easy. I wonder if this really is something more intuitive rather than a rule like "No LR adjustments beyond 20" to be applied. From the photos posted here in LuLa land, I think there's a lot o great intuition out there! Russ Lewis has said many times, study the great photographers and I think I have to do more of that, but there are some great photographers here and I can "talk" to them! Most of all, I have to keep shooting and searching for that elusive "perfect" capture. And THEN avoid cocking it up in PP!

I think we are on the same wavelength. It certainly is an intuitive and personal judgement. There is, of course, no "gold standard" that we photographers are striving for. As an amateur, I am fortunately to have to please only myself, and if I make one photo a week that I really like I consider myself a great success!

[Peter McLennan]

Simple is hard. And so is subtle.  I think it's mostly the artist's responsibility to make those choices, and they can be difficult.  

I would like slightly more detail in the ocean. Otherwise, lovely.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No, HERE's pumped up yellow and WB Same evening.

Actually, I find that photo much subtler (and likable)  than the OP.

You see, subtlety should not be in the technique, but in the end result. You can have LR pushed to +100 (I often do) and yet the end result might appear subtle. And sometimes +20 is way too much.

On a side note, it is worth noting that LR, from v.4, is using "adaptive" sliders. In other words, sliders strength is relative to the image and codependent on other sliders, so any rule "not beyond +20" is meaningless.

Your OP image appears, to me, way overprocessed. Or not processed enough. But subtle, in the end result, it is not. You still have burned highlights and blocked shadows (to the point that some are mistaking the foreground for an ocean), in spite of the 32-bit technique (or because of it?).

[Rob C]

I think we are on the same wavelength. It certainly is an intuitive and personal judgement. There is, of course, no "gold standard" that we photographers are striving for. As an amateur, I am fortunately to have to please only myself, and if I make one photo a week that I really like I consider myself a great success!

So would Bailey; I have him on video cassette saying that a dozen good images a year is pretty damned good... Or was that a dozen in a lfetime? I'll have to watch again!

Rob C

[David Eckels]

Actually, I find that photo much subtler (and likable)  than the OP.

That's interesting. Because you like abstracts? Or for some other reason? I wopped that one hard, but maybe that is your point in the next quote.

You see, subtlety should not be in the technique, but in the end result. You can have LR pushed to +100 (I often do) and yet the end result might appear subtle. And sometimes +20 is way too much.

And therein lies the judgment that seems to be not fully formed in my mind; could be talent, too, and that's OK.

On a side note, it is worth noting that LR, from v.4, is using "adaptive" sliders. In other words, sliders strength is relative to the image and codependent on other sliders, so any rule "not beyond +20" is meaningless.

I do get that so I think I am trying to focus on the end result. I just find it frustrating that when I think I am being subtle (avoiding the heavy hand on the controls), it is not being perceived that way.

Your OP image appears, to me, way overprocessed. Or not processed enough. But subtle, in the end result, it is not. You still have burned highlights and blocked shadows (to the point that some are mistaking the foreground for an ocean), in spite of the 32-bit technique (or because of it?).

So that's interesting too, because on the LR version, there are only blocked shadows in the very lower right corner and really only a very small dot or two of the highlights are burned. I am exporting to jpegs, high quality, normal screen sharpening, and sRGB albeit with significant down-sampling by LR; defaults as far as I know. Are my settings any different than others? I admit, I haven't thought much about web viewing issues although I have been concerned about color shits that seem to occur with IE10 on my monitor and go away with Chrome. The other thought that occurs to me is, that sunset was not subtle in itself; it was rather spectacular. I think I need art classes!

And to Peter and Rob's points, yes I am certainly being greedy in expecting every photo to be a gem. I need to lower my expectations, cull more photos, or raise my "bar" significantly!

I do appreciate all the comments.

UPDATE! LOL. Shifts, I mean shifts as in color shifts

[churly]

A couple of things Dave.

- I agree with Slobodan on the subtlety comparison between the two images but it is subjective.
- Almost the first thing I saw when I enlarged the 2nd image is the noise in the clouds.
- Well actually 3 things - I have found that downsizing tends to close up low key areas.  I bet that the shadows in the foreground in your OP didn't look that way at full size on your monitor.  I think that some images  downsize a lot better than others and posting difficult images on the web is sort of like preparing for printing.  You need to 'soft proof' at the size they will occur on the web.

Chuck

[David Eckels]

I have found that downsizing tends to close up low key areas.  I bet that the shadows in the foreground in your OP didn't look that way at full size on your monitor.  I think that some images  downsize a lot better than others and posting difficult images on the web is sort of like preparing for printing.  You need to 'soft proof' at the size they will occur on the web.

I will give that a whack. Makes me wonder if a 1000 pixel image meant to be 5 times larger can be assessed adequately from within a browser for details. I can see the noise too when I enlarge it to 12 inches wide or so, up in the top middle bluish area, if that's what you mean. Thanks for the comments. Many miles to go before I sleep...