Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape Photography Locations => Topic started by: Hans Kruse on December 22, 2015, 12:30:04 pm
-
In October 2015 I visited the Western Dolomites. Like the Eastern part of the Dolomites there are here many great viewpoints and iconic locations.
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-mQxJfPX/1/X2/DSC_2264-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-gFK6Lx4/0/X2/_P4A8769-HDR-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-DZjHk3N/0/X2/_P4A8795-HDR-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-9fj7ZFt/0/X2/DSC_2291-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-gbdtcp4/2/X2/DSC_2327-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-jhvDmpH/0/X2/_P4A8936-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-VxJBK5z/2/X2/_P4A8970-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-rtfMkwV/0/X2/_P4A9016-HDR-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-GbR9zmh/0/X2/_P4A9082-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-snjWQfh/0/X2/DSC_2457-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-BHG57VJ/0/X2/_P4A9129-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-sFpPN2G/0/X2/DSC_2635-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-SD8D9vx/0/X2/_P4A9327-HDR-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-6XvPk59/0/X2/_P4A9331-HDR-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-bDGbg94/0/X2/DSC_2721-X2.jpg)
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-October-2016/i-Nq7kQkQ/0/X2/_P4A9456-X2.jpg)
-
More beautiful photos, Hans. And technically perfect. Wonderful!
-
And technically perfect.
Look badly oversaturated to me.
-
Look badly oversaturated to me.
Going to your website I see a lot of poorly composed pictures.
-
Look badly oversaturated to me.
Sex Saturation sells.
Going to your website I see a lot of poorly composed pictures.
Shots fired! Dodge and burn!
-
Hi,
I guess that is part of the photographer's artistic expression. Personally I may aim for less saturation, I guess.
Here are some of mine:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140603-_DSC4026.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140604-_DSC4093.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140605-_DSC4388.jpg)
That was another time but not another place…
Best regards
Erik
Look badly oversaturated to me.
-
I have no quibbles with either group of shots.
The lighting conditions are clearly different - the differences in the images may partly be due to different approaches in post but are primarily determined by the prevailing light.
Either way the Dolomites seem to be a great place to treat one's camera!
Tony Jay
-
Yes, of course!
I see it is as an artistic freedom to render the image.
I agree that the Dolomites is a great place. If you are looking for the magic light, I can recommend Hans Kruse's workshops. He knows about finding that good light and the right spots to shoot!
Best regards
Erik
I have no quibbles with either group of shots.
The lighting conditions are clearly different - the differences in the images may partly be due to different approaches in post but are primarily determined by the prevailing light.
Either way the Dolomites seem to be a great place to treat one's camera!
Tony Jay
-
Sex Saturation sells.
Shots fired! Dodge and burn!
Well, yes! I found the comment from Petrus inapropriate. It's not just about saturation and it's not about selling. Some make very weak colors and very underprocessed, which can be nice, but often it just looks like underprocessed ;) I make my pictures as I like and I welcome comments, but I would ask for a little respect rather than the comment from Petrus.
-
Erik has shown pictures from a different time of day and a different time of year and this does look very different. My pictures are from the late autumn where the light is quite different and a number of the shots were from the very early morning and before the sun came up. I can say the colors were very very strong and I don't feel the saturation is too high for these images. But taste is different, of course, and this is the way I like to present these pictures given where I am today. In 2 years from now and going back to the same images I may process them differently.
Honestly I knew there would be comments like the one from Petrus. There always are.... Usually they are more respectful and more elaborate not just bluntly badly oversaturated! So I made a similar respect less comment to him if that makes it sink or not, I don't know ;)
-
Hi,
I guess that is part of the photographer's artistic expression. Personally I may aim for less saturation, I guess.
Here are some of mine:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140603-_DSC4026.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140604-_DSC4093.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Exhibitions/BergDalOchVatten_1/20140605-_DSC4388.jpg)
That was another time but not another place…
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik,
For my taste the first two of yours which are shot at a different time of day and of the year are a bit flat for my taste. The last one is fine.
Here is one shot almost at the same time as yours
(http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Workshops/Dolomites-June-2016/i-LbmNdc7/0/X2/_DSC3385-X2.jpg)
-
Yes, of course!
I see it is as an artistic freedom to render the image.
I agree that the Dolomites is a great place. If you are looking for the magic light, I can recommend Hans Kruse's workshops. He knows about finding that good light and the right spots to shoot!
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik, and that is the point. And useful comments are ones where that freedom is respected. However comments can be useful for the author to say, e.g. perhaps I'll try to reprocess some images in a different way and see how it comes out. I don't think postprocessing should cast in stone in terms of approach and style, but be adapted to the image, the light in the scene and how to present it to a viewer. I do that with my images, but I do not know how this will look at other monitors or devices. When you were in the Dolomites with me we had some mornings with a good amount of color, but nothing that could compare with the morning shots above. One would not believe it. I knew, of course, that some people would feel they were totally overprocessed which actually they are not. But again, somebody else taking the same raw files as me would most likely get a rather different result. And that's how it should be imho.
-
I have no quibbles with either group of shots.
The lighting conditions are clearly different - the differences in the images may partly be due to different approaches in post but are primarily determined by the prevailing light.
Either way the Dolomites seem to be a great place to treat one's camera!
Tony Jay
Thanks Tony, and the Dolomites are quite amazing in my opinion. You can take a look, if you like, at my Dolomites pictures shot during the year from 2009 and up to 2015 here http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/Landscapes/Dolomites/ and get an impression of the locations and the different light over the years.
-
Hi Hans,
I know that those images were different light, just wanted to show some examples of my preferences of image processing.
Your comment on the third picture is interesting, I definitively felt it was a bit overprocessed to my taste, but I wanted to make the experience justice.
It was a wonderful experience. I also recorded some video on that one, I feel it can really enhance a slide show.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik,
For my taste the first two of yours which are shot at a different time of day and of the year are a bit flat for my taste. The last one is fine.
Here is one shot almost at the same time as yours
-
My blunt statement was not aimed so much at the photographs themselves, but the words I quoted: "technically perfect". How can pictures where the saturation is totally over the top be "technically perfect"?
I myself have been to Brenta and Cortina seven times so far doing Via Ferrata climbs, have done a badly composed TV-documentary about those and a big magazine article (shot on Velvia, so "true"…). So I approximately remember what it looks like there, even them sunsets. With the recent trend of over saturating all landscape pictures it seems that they start to look natural to many of us and nobody is allowed to mention it anymore. Anybody in their right mind can see the saturation and color differences are not caused by being there in different years or time of the year.
What comes to Hans' instant and quick comment about my pictures being badly composed if find it a quite childish reflex-like reaction. I do not see its relevance at all. If I can not compose does it mean I can not notice if a landscape picture is over saturated, out of focus or has cameras shake? As my photography is flawed in some way I can not comment on other's pictures? Or is it just that critique is here not really wanted, only pats in the back?
In fact I find 75% of pictures presented on this site for critique quite worthless but keep my mouth shut. Still amazing numbers of other members comment favorably. It is much worse on more popular sites, though, where comments true but negative enough are simply moderated away.
Pictures on my site ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/sets ) are documentary / street in nature, so there often is no time to tweak the composition much, just frame and grab the shot. I would be extremely happy if Hans, a good man, would privately pick out a few worst samples and point out my mistakes. Maybe not here in public, would be to embarrassing, but privately.
-
Well, yes! I found the comment from Petrus inapropriate. It's not just about saturation and it's not about selling. Some make very weak colors and very underprocessed, which can be nice, but often it just looks like underprocessed ;) I make my pictures as I like and I welcome comments, but I would ask for a little respect rather than the comment from Petrus.
He seems to enjoy being condescendingly dismissive. Look back through his posts: you'll struggle to find anything helpful.
Jeremy
-
My blunt statement was not aimed so much at the photographs themselves, but the words I quoted: "technically perfect". How can pictures where the saturation is totally over the top be "technically perfect"?
I myself have been to Brenta and Cortina seven times so far doing Via Ferrata climbs, have done a badly composed TV-documentary about those and a big magazine article (shot on Velvia, so "true"…). So I approximately remember what it looks like there, even them sunsets. With the recent trend of over saturating all landscape pictures it seems that they start to look natural to many of us and nobody is allowed to mention it anymore. Anybody in their right mind can see the saturation and color differences are not caused by being there in different years or time of the year.
What comes to Hans' instant and quick comment about my pictures being badly composed if find it a quite childish reflex-like reaction. I do not see its relevance at all. If I can not compose does it mean I can not notice if a landscape picture is over saturated, out of focus or has cameras shake? As my photography is flawed in some way I can not comment on other's pictures? Or is it just that critique is here not really wanted, only pats in the back?
In fact I find 75% of pictures presented on this site for critique quite worthless but keep my mouth shut. Still amazing numbers of other members comment favorably. It is much worse on more popular sites, though, where comments true but negative enough are simply moderated away.
Pictures on my site ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/112698197@N08/sets ) are documentary / street in nature, so there often is no time to tweak the composition much, just frame and grab the shot. I would be extremely happy if Hans, a good man, would privately pick out a few worst samples and point out my mistakes. Maybe not here in public, would be to embarrassing, but privately.
The statement of technically perfect was not cup of tea either to be honest. I suspect that this comment was based on technical parameters and not how it was post processed. After this discussion I need to say that my purpose of shooting landscapes is not to be documentary. I like to bring the landscapes to life via finding good viewpoints, special light and post process such that it brings this out that I'm looking for. I'm not looking for the ordinary although quite often the scenes can look quite ordinary most of the time! When I'm shooting landscape I try to judge which locations will work given the weather and the knowledge I have ab out the different locations.
Saturation as a single parameter is a bit strange to me. For me it is a lot more about distributing light across the frame in a way that makes it come to life. This involves contrast a lot and local adjustments. I use the tone mapping sliders a lot and use also white and black point in setting contrast. I fine tune contrast to my liking using the tone curve and not very often via the contrast slider. I use clarity sparingly and most pictures I do not touch either the saturation or vibrance sliders. The saturation in my images comes as a side effect of making the contrast and exposure and other light adjustments. I sometimes feel like taking the saturation a bit down and then drag either saturation or vibrance down but it seldomly successful and therefore it not often I do that.
So as you can see from my images I'm not looking for a straight mapping of the scene into the final picture. Some people like that if that works for them that is fine. But honestly I find that boring. I also see some pictures where it is clear that the photographer has spent quite some effort in making a really good composition, but if the light is bad or the post processing does not do it justice, well then in my view it is not a successful image.
Again I underline in my view or for my taste. I do not like absolutes about photography and way too often opinions are expressed as absolutes. I do like to make the technical underpinnings for a photo as good as possible, but that does not make the photo, it only makes the starting point for what the post processing brings out.
Regarding your pictures, Petrus, I'm not going to comment further, but I will say that I have seen documentary photographers and photojournalists (e.g. seen in World Press photos) not only captures the moment but also pay great attention to composition and detail. And many also do the post processing to bring out the drama that might be conveyed by the pictures. Those are the kind of pictures that makes an impact (for me). You call my comment a childish reaction and you are welcome to have that opinion, but saying this is not only condescending but also not understanding what I already commented earlier in this thread. In your comment about oversaturation you just forget to add: In my opinion or for my taste! Photography should (in my opinion) be about image making and not about an objective or scientifically correct reproduction of the world at a given GPS coordinate and time for documentary purposes.
-
Very nice! I'm good with the color. :)
-
Hans, Your shots here are not 'oversaturated', but merely feature strongly saturated colors.
I find the good taste with which you have deployed the strong saturation to be a pleasure for my eyes, which are tired of the common, amateurish, mindlessly oversaturated style that we see every day on the web and often in advertising. Bravo.
Also, your compositions are superior to the other few competing samples offered.
-
I was in the Dolomites, with Hans, this June - highly recommended trip to anyone who can keep up with him for 9 days!
Without fail, every single time I have shown photos from this trip, someone has commented on the saturation. And I have honestly had to say I have desaturated those shots slightly, as no one would believe they were not pumped up if I just ran a straight conversion.
You've got to see the Dolomites in June to believe it with your own eyes!
-
I was in the Dolomites, with Hans, this June - highly recommended trip to anyone who can keep up with him for 9 days!
Without fail, every single time I have shown photos from this trip, someone has commented on the saturation. And I have honestly had to say I have desaturated those shots slightly, as no one would believe they were not pumped up if I just ran a straight conversion.
You've got to see the Dolomites in June to believe it with your own eyes!
Thanks Bill, it will be interesting to see if you can keep up with me once more :)
Again regarding saturation, contrast etc. in post processing is a matter of taste and not for me, at least, to present the scenes as I "saw them". Many use that term to justify a certain look or post processing. If that works, it is fine. For me it is not the criteria I go with.
-
Hans, Your shots here are not 'oversaturated', but merely feature strongly saturated colors.
I find the good taste with which you have deployed the strong saturation to be a pleasure for my eyes, which are tired of the common, amateurish, mindlessly oversaturated style that we see every day on the web and often in advertising. Bravo.
Also, your compositions are superior to the other few competing samples offered.
Exactly!
It just happens that some people, including me, Hans, Alain Briot and Peter Lik like saturated colors, and there are some who like subtle coloring. You won't believe it, but there are even individuals who will desaturate their images completely.
Similar phenomenon occurs when men are presented with images of women. Some like them slim and subtle, others big and with pronounced features.
No need to quarrel - there is a picture for each man - that's what they call democracy.
-
Exactly!
It just happens that some people, including me, Hans, Alain Briot and Peter Lik like saturated colors, and there are some who like subtle coloring. You won't believe it, but there are even individuals who will desaturate their images completely.
Similar phenomenon occurs when men are presented with images of women. Some like them slim and subtle, others big and with pronounced features.
No need to quarrel - there is a picture for each man - that's what they call democracy.
It isn't about liking saturated colours though, is it? Surely it's more about whether they are believable or pimped up? Using your analogy, do you appreciate someone whose looks obviously depend on boob jobs and other surgery as much as someone who looks real?
I can just about believe the more saturated photos here, so it's a general point.
John
-
Hmm .. believable in what sense? I think our eyes and memories are not objective recorders of what is in front of us - we can think of a moon as being enormous at certain times, though we know for a fact that it subtends a zillionth of a degree at our eyes. Should the photo record that objective fact, or our subjective impression that it was huge?
I have stood beside Hans at a number of these locations, and been overwhelmed by the colour in the sky - that was my subjective impression. However, I am prepared to accept (as I suspect Hans will also) that the colour in his photo does not match that which was actually in the sky. It is his interpretation, rather than a record. I don't think Hans is making a dogmatic statement here - that was rather Petrus, with his drive-by comment.
-
Hi,
There is something called artistic freedom/artistic expression. Visual arts are not intended to be a reproduction of the subject but an artistic interpretation.
Personally, I have a preference for a bit more restrained colour, but that doesn't give me the right to say what preferences other photographers should have.
I have taken part in two of Hans's workshops, and the reason I was doing it was that I was tempted by his photography.
Best regards
Erik
It isn't about liking saturated colours though, is it? Surely it's more about whether they are believable or pimped up? Using your analogy, do you appreciate someone whose looks obviously depend on boob jobs and other surgery as much as someone who looks real?
I can just about believe the more saturated photos here, so it's a general point.
John
-
I don't think Hans is making a dogmatic statement here -ns is making a dogmatic statement that was rather Petrus, with his drive-by comment.
Again: I was commenting the statement that those photographs were "technically perfect". With colors so much off (I start to see some others also admit they are over (strongly?) saturated, or whatever) they certainly can not be "technically perfect". The RAW file might be.
While I am at it, when is Hans going to give samples of my bad compositions and give some (free?) advice? If he is not, I maintain that his behavior was childish.
-
Hmm .. believable in what sense? I think our eyes and memories are not objective recorders of what is in front of us - we can think of a moon as being enormous at certain times, though we know for a fact that it subtends a zillionth of a degree at our eyes. Should the photo record that objective fact, or our subjective impression that it was huge?
In the sense that one could reasonably believe that we might have seen those colours with our own eyes, had we been there at the time.
I also know the region quite well, so that's why I said "I can just about believe" their colours.
Personally, I have a preference for a bit more restrained colour, but that doesn't give me the right to say what preferences other photographers should have.
But you have every right to say what you think of the resulting "photograph", if that's what it remains.
John
-
So,
I prefer Matisse to Picasso, so I should teach Picasso how to paint?
Best regards
Erik
In the sense that one could reasonably believe that we might have seen those colours with our own eyes, had we been there at the time.
But you have every right to say what you think of the resulting "photograph", if that's what it remains.
John
-
I prefer Matisse to Picasso, so I should teach Picasso how to paint?
We're talking landscape photography, not abstract painting, and judging not someone's preferences but the result. How unbelievably-saturated can a "photograph" become before one expresses a judgement about it?
-
While I am at it, when is Hans going to give samples of my bad compositions and give some (free?) advice? If he is not, I maintain that his behavior was childish.
You seem to be upset by someone making an arbitrary, off the cuff criticism of your photographs.
-
You seem to be upset by someone making an arbitrary, off the cuff criticism of your photographs.
Quite frankly I do. It is not that I can not stand criticism or even want it (I have asked Hans to elaborate with examples and to give his expert advice), but in this context it was totally out of place and childish. If we are talking about technical perfection and saturation, what the hell does it do with my inability to compose a photograph? We can have another thread about that it deemed necessary.
I have shown a couple of my photographs here on various threads + the recent Tibet article, and the compositional deficiencies were never mentioned then.
Waiting for an answer from Hans.
-
Personally, I think the artistic merits of Mr. Petrus' photographs are beside the point here. His original criticism of the photographs that were put up at the start of the thread was not in any way personally insulting. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his criticism(and I am sure many would agree), I feel that anyone who puts up their photos as examples of their work is opening themselves up to the expression of opinions about the artistic merits of the work. I consider it childish for someone to respond to a reasonable criticism of their work by criticizing the photographic capabilities of the critic. Of course, it is also possible that the OP put up the photos at issue without any expectation of aesthetic criticism. They were just a not so subtle form of advertising for his workshops.
-
Hans,
In your comment about oversaturation you just forget to add: In my opinion or for my taste!
No.
...to me.
-
Personally, I think the artistic merits of Mr. Petrus' photographs are beside the point here. His original criticism of the photographs that were put up at the start of the thread was not in any way personally insulting. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his criticism(and I am sure many would agree), I feel that anyone who puts up their photos as examples of their work is opening themselves up to the expression of opinions about the artistic merits of the work. I consider it childish for someone to respond to a reasonable criticism of their work by criticizing the photographic capabilities of the critic. Of course, it is also possible that the OP put up the photos at issue without any expectation of aesthetic criticism. They were just a not so subtle form of advertising for his workshops.
I don't find the comments from Petrus a critique. Using words as badly oversaturated and totally over the top is not meant to be a critique in my book. Personally I don't know why Petrus expresses himself this way. In fact the comment is quite over the top. I must have struck something in him with my pictures to provoke such a reaction. I did not mention workshops in my post and is a professional photographer not allowed to post here? If anything they were posted to show some of my work and show the locations I have been shooting and hence the posting was in Landscape Photography Locations. I welcome critique, but not condescending remarks. People can disagree as their taste is different which I think we all know. There was not really any critique in the thread. Only comments about saturation. I would assume that most photographers would not even regard this as the most important part of pictures. But a few negative comments will not stop further posting of pictures :)
-
I don't find the comments from Petrus a critique. Using words as badly oversaturated and totally over the top is not meant to be a critique in my book.
"Going to your website I see a lot of poorly composed pictures." That sounds like a critique. Firstly, I do not have a website. If you mean the Flicker pages, why do you not give some examples of my badly composed pictures?
Do you think that your over saturated images somehow get better if I compose my own photos badly? They do not. Photographic technique does not work that way, your pictures look over saturated no matter how I frame my shots. What kind of teacher and pedagogue are you, if you think that way?
I would seriously think twice before taking part and paying for your workshops, as we can enjoy your thin skinned childish reactions here for free.
-
Do you think that your over saturated images somehow get better if I compose my own photos badly? They do not. Photographic technique does not work that way, your pictures look over saturated no matter how I frame my shots. What kind of teacher and pedagogue are you, if you think that way?
My guess is that Hans has no particular opinion on your photos, and was simply illustrating that destructive off-hand criticism has no value. His point seems to have been proved, in view of your defensive reaction.
-
Hans,
Great stuff as always. My solution to those who don't like the saturation is go there and judge the palette for themselves. If it is too intense for there liking convert to B and W ;D
dolomites b and w (http://samwardphoto.com/blackandwhite/e3070bb59)
Happy New Year to all
Sam
-
Cheaper solution would be to make one of the RAWs available for download, and those interested could make neutral conversions with their favorite converters.
-
Cheaper solution would be to make one of the RAWs available for download, and those interested could make neutral conversions with their favorite converters.
On that subject - a while ago Kevin was challenged over the treatment of a shot of Glencoe, and proposed a "process-off" with Joe Cornish and others (IIRC). What happened to that?
-
Cheaper solution would be to make one of the RAWs available for download, and those interested could make neutral conversions with their favorite converters.
Cheaper, but wholly pointless. You could create a washed-out, desaturated scene which you wouldn't know didn't resemble the original because you'd not bothered to go there. What would that prove?
Jeremy
-
Cheaper, but wholly pointless. You could create a washed-out, desaturated scene which you wouldn't know didn't resemble the original because you'd not bothered to go there. What would that prove?
Jeremy
There are several threads going on even now about the minute differences between RAW converters and nanometer level discussions about the accuracy of sensor color filters. That would be quite pointless unless there were neutral settings for camera/converter combinations, which produce the most accurate reproduction of a given scene (people seem to spend countless hours shooting colorimetric targets for this). So I am in belief that doing a straight conversion with neutral settings would actually give a fairly good idea about what the scene really was like.
If it is no so why measure sensor color gamuts and what not if they are meaningless?
-
Cheaper, but wholly pointless. You could create a washed-out, desaturated scene which you wouldn't know didn't resemble the original because you'd not bothered to go there. What would that prove?
Jeremy
Indeed. Added to which NOBODY here, not even Hans, has claimed that his images represent an objectively accurate portrayal of the colours present when he took the pictures. That's sort of the point. Hans took the shots, processed them according to what he wished to communicate, and then Petrus came by with his casual 4-word criticism which adds nothing to any discussion.
-
Hans,
Great stuff as always. My solution to those who don't like saturation is go there and judge the palette for themselves. If it is to intense for there liking convert to B and W ;D
dolomites b and w (http://samwardphoto.com/blackandwhite/e3070bb59)
Happy New Year to all
Sam
Thanks Sam and your advice is good :) And Happy New Year to you and all.
-
Indeed. Added to which NOBODY here, not even Hans, has claimed that his images represent an objectively accurate portrayal of the colours present when he took the pictures. That's sort of the point. Hans took the shots, processed them according to what he wished to communicate, and then Petrus came by with his casual 4-word criticism which adds nothing to any discussion.
Yes, that's the point. I'm not into documentary landscape photography. Looking at the internet, not many are. Even those who claim (directly or indirectly) that they document what they saw it is clear from looking at most of such pictures that the selection of viewpoint, framing and time of day there is a desire to communicate a feeling of the landscape. The socalled neutral representation does not exist in my opinion. No matter what the photographer does he will put his/hers personal touch on it. The same goes for any documentary photography and PJ work that I have seen. They all have a bias towards what the photographer wants to communicate. It's to me interesting that this kind of discussion still goes on at the end of 2015 :)
-
It's interesting that there were no comments on anything else than saturation from those who objected to the saturation. When shooting in the early mornings before sunrise or just around the sunrise those who have experienced it will know that not only can the colors be extremely saturated. We often comment to each other that the colors are so saturated to nobody will believe it. But the other and more important point is that when the sky is not only saturated but also bright the landscape itself may be very dark. It can be hard to even see the landscape with the eyes unless one hides the sky and let the eyes adjust to see the landscape. Therefore to even show the landscape it is necessary to adjust the exposure and the tone curve to compensate for the huge difference in light intesnsity. Some do it while shooting using graduated ND filters and others (like myself) do it by blending or adjust with local adjustments in post processing.
The second picture exposed to just the clipping limit in the sky is attached as a neutral conversion using Lightroom. Neutral means AWB from the camera and all sliders in the zero position. The camera profile was camera standard. I would assume nobody would find such an image interesting despite it being neutrally converted and thus for some people to be regarded as a documentary shot. But in fact it is not because that's definitely not how our eyes were seeing this scene. The second attachment shows an exposure exposed 5 stops higher than the first. So blending the shots can show the entire tonal range. But is this realistic? Yes, and no. Will it be possible to make a picture? Yes, absolutely, but where to draw the line between something believable and something artificial. That's the choice of the photographer and therefore the post processing is an essential part of making a picture. What I personally do in post processing a picture like this is to give the impression of a sunrise and also how the light comes in and illuminates the landscape. Probably like a painter would do if he was trying to paint one moment from that morning. I can't imagine anybody disagreeing on what I say here. But what do I know ? :D ;)
In any case Happy New Year to you all and see you here on Lula or elsewhere in 2016!
-
The only criteria by which I judge a photograph, is aesthetics. If it is aesthetically pleasing, nothing else really matters, and aesthetics is a wholly subjective consideration. And I might not know much about photography, but I know what I like.
Another point is that the people who'll complain about processing leaving a photograph looking unreal, only do so in regard to colour images. No one ever says it about B&W. Funny that.
-
The only criteria by which I judge a photograph, is aesthetics. If it is aesthetically pleasing, nothing else really matters, and aesthetics is a wholly subjective consideration. And I might not know much about photography, but I know what I like.
Another point is that the people who'll complain about processing leaving a photograph looking unreal, only do so in regard to colour images. No one ever says it about B&W. Funny that.
Bill I disagree about you knowing little about photography but I agree about the rest of your post. A point in general, and not aimed at anyone in particular is that I believe that jealousy is a factor. Some photographers complain about processed images and wish they had the skills to do the same. They don't and take the negative view that all images shouldn't be processed and left as they were, straight out of the camera. This attitude comes from mostly film photographers. If this was to happen it would be more of a level playing field and the jealous photographers would compete better when praise for images is getting handed out. Hans made a very pertinent point that even if someone doesn't like an image or the processing they should have at least have respect for the image unless of course it is "awful"
There is a difference between critiquing and nitpicking. :(
-
Another point is that the people who'll complain about processing leaving a photograph looking unreal, only do so in regard to colour images. No one ever says it about B&W.
Generally true, yes, but that's not saying much. It's merely because by its nature B&W can't usually mislead the viewer to think its greyscale tones are what the photographer saw.
-
Hans,
Thanks for sharing these photos and the way you work on them.
I like the Dolomites as well since they are such expressive mountains. Combined with the sunset and well done HDR techniques they are almost too much to grasp in terms of beauty and color.
The colors in landscapes and flowers are often very saturated; often we simply cannot even reproduce them.
I remember some places i have been too were the colors were overwhelming;
in iceland ; The blue sky i saw there i have never seen anywhere else - a very deep intense blue.
On the Arabic mediterranean shoreline. Algiers as an example; The sunsets bring about a special light/ atmosphere. I cannot put my finger on it but every time i am there it grabs me.
Just before sunrise in the Sahara desert. A place were you can actually feel the force of the sun when it rises. A giant red curved glow at the horizon with intense blue above.
-
Another point is that the people who'll complain about processing leaving a photograph looking unreal, only do so in regard to colour images. No one ever says it about B&W. Funny that.
Ansel the Great made several versions of his Moonrise over Hernandez, some of them more "processed" than others. I certainly like some of them better than others.
I have sometimes pointed out how ugly over processed (with LR clarity, NIK "wet rock") B&W looks when used on street photography. That kind of B&W processing was of course not possible during the film era, just like excessive saturation was not possible either, unless retorting to complicated and expensive dye transfer & layering processes. Now both are possible with single slider or few clicks of the mouse, so of course they get misused. I admit I use clarity and vibrance adjustments also, but too much is too much, be it chili in a soup or unnatural looking manipulations in a photograph, which is supposedly showing something real, street or scenery.
-
... I certainly like some of them better than others...
...but too much is too much...
Ok, but who is to tell? or are you thé Petrus?
-
Hi,
In the film days we had Velvia and Cibachrome. Although I liked them both, or at least I liked Velvia, both could produce ghastly colours…
Best regards
Erik
Ansel the Great made several versions of his Moonrise over Hernandez, some of them more "processed" than others. I certainly like some of them better than others.
I have sometimes pointed out how ugly over processed (with LR clarity, NIK "wet rock") B&W looks when used on street photography. That kind of B&W processing was of course not possible during the film era, just like excessive saturation was not possible either, unless retorting to complicated and expensive dye transfer & layering processes. Now both are possible with single slider or few clicks of the mouse, so of course they get misused. I admit I use clarity and vibrance adjustments also, but too much is too much, be it chili in a soup or unnatural looking manipulations in a photograph, which is supposedly showing something real, street or scenery.
-
Bill I disagree about you knowing little about photography but I agree about the rest of your post. A point in general, and not aimed at anyone in particular is that I believe that jealousy is a factor. Some photographers complain about processed images and wish they had the skills to do the same. They don't and take the negative view that all images shouldn't be processed and left as they were, straight out of the camera. This attitude comes from mostly film photographers. If this was to happen it would be more of a level playing field and the jealous photographers would compete better when praise for images is getting handed out. Hans made a very pertinent point that even if someone doesn't like an image or the processing they should have at least have respect for the image unless of course it is "awful"
There is a difference between critiquing and nitpicking. :(
It is ridiculous to suggest that the reason why many people criticize the kind of lurid, overprocessed images that are so prevalent on the internet is because they are jealous of the postprocessing "skills" that are applied to the images. Cranking up clarity and saturation and using HDR techniques in postprocessing hardly requires much skill. As for showing "respect" for the image, if that's what you are after, I suggest Flickr, where are all images are wonderful and where nobody ever says an unkind word. After all, we are talking about landscape photographs, not religious symbols.
-
Hi,
It may be that the images look much better on a dark grey or black blackground…
Best regards
Erik
I was in the Dolomites, with Hans, this June - highly recommended trip to anyone who can keep up with him for 9 days!
Without fail, every single time I have shown photos from this trip, someone has commented on the saturation. And I have honestly had to say I have desaturated those shots slightly, as no one would believe they were not pumped up if I just ran a straight conversion.
You've got to see the Dolomites in June to believe it with your own eyes!
-
Look badly oversaturated to me.
To me and to my very poor knowledge of english language this opinion seems perfectly innocent, although the word "badly" could appear harsh ("frank" in the diplomatic Language).
I remember (I remember) that I saw a sky similar to that of the second photo, but much more “overprocessed” and with the reds extended over all the sky, in 1982 in Malcesine, on Lake Garda. I took some photographs with my Canon FTb (I was doing my military service in Verona...) and the photolab gave me photos 10X15 cm with colours not very different from those of the second photo. The vivid colours of the sky in the other photos aren't neither very rare, nor very common.
To me (to my monitor indeed) the red leaves in 9 seem a bit too red. In 2,3,4,13 to my eyes there is too great difference in brightness between the foreground (lighter) and hills, mountain walls and sky in the background (darker). This difference is present also (in not very pleasant way) in the rocky walls 4, 7, 11 (maybe) and 13, where the upper side is darker than the lower side, in this case perhaps because of harsh blending of two exposures. Also in 6 the grass on the summit of the hill in the middle, just in front of the rocky walls, strangely appears very dark.
P.S. I admit in advance that all my photos are badly composed and oversaturated :).
-
It is ridiculous to suggest that the reason why many people criticize the kind of lurid, overprocessed images that are so prevalent on the internet is because they are jealous of the postprocessing "skills" that are applied to the images. Cranking up clarity and saturation and using HDR techniques in postprocessing hardly requires much skill. As for showing "respect" for the image, if that's what you are after, I suggest Flickr, where are all images are wonderful and where nobody ever says an unkind word. After all, we are talking about landscape photographs, not religious symbols.
You are talking rubbish.
-
It is ridiculous to suggest that the reason why many people criticize the kind of lurid, overprocessed images that are so prevalent on the internet is because they are jealous of the postprocessing "skills" that are applied to the images. Cranking up clarity and saturation and using HDR techniques in postprocessing hardly requires much skill. As for showing "respect" for the image, if that's what you are after, I suggest Flickr, where are all images are wonderful and where nobody ever says an unkind word. After all, we are talking about landscape photographs, not religious symbols.
Two posts on the forum and you are already trolling. I don't think you are going to last very long in the forum? :(
-
Saturation as a single parameter is a bit strange to me. For me it is a lot more about distributing light across the frame in a way that makes it come to life. This involves contrast a lot and local adjustments. I use the tone mapping sliders a lot and use also white and black point in setting contrast. I fine tune contrast to my liking using the tone curve and not very often via the contrast slider. I use clarity sparingly and most pictures I do not touch either the saturation or vibrance sliders. The saturation in my images comes as a side effect of making the contrast and exposure and other light adjustments. I sometimes feel like taking the saturation a bit down and then drag either saturation or vibrance down but it seldomly successful and therefore it not often I do that.
This is exactly what I see with my own images as well,
sometimes I like said push of saturation and sometimes it is getting a bit too much for me. In the latter case, aside from personal taste, I think there is a particular technical background here:
LR/ACR, since Process Version 2012, allow to apply a quite steep tonal contrast, but - unlike in the past - without blocking the shadow and highlight details which can be well preserved by strong settings with the corresponding Highlights and Shadows controls.
As a side effect from the steeper tonal contrast there is a pronounced push of saturation but the effect is uneven along the tonal scale: there is more saturation added in the shadows than in the lights. A typical case is that the sky shows a nice saturated blue, whereas e.g. the shadows of mountains get blue-inked in an exaggerated way. Hence, saturation can not be re-balanced by a global saturation slider, so that I have to resort to a more selective approach.
Hope it is clear that I’m not voting for a documentary, scene-referred level of saturation here, which is often not desirable and would simply look ugly. To add saturation is among the key tools to adjust an image (in terms of a pleasing rendition) for the huge difference between the scene dynamic range vs output dynamic range (the big squeeze (http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf)). So the absolute level of saturation is quite a matter of individual taste and the viewing conditions, albeit my assumption is that some relative "saturation consistency" could be more a general criterion.
Peter
--
-
Two posts on the forum and you are already trolling. I don't think you are going to last very long in the forum? :(
Surely you have something more accurate and responsive to add to the discussion?
-
Surely you have something more accurate and responsive to add to the discussion?
Reply#46
Bill I disagree about you knowing little about photography but I agree about the rest of your post. A point in general, and not aimed at anyone in particular is that I believe that jealousy is a factor. Some photographers complain about processed images and wish they had the skills to do the same. They don't and take the negative view that all images shouldn't be processed and left as they were, straight out of the camera. This attitude comes from mostly film photographers. If this was to happen it would be more of a level playing field and the jealous photographers would compete better when praise for images is getting handed out. Hans made a very pertinent point that even if someone doesn't like an image or the processing they should have at least have respect for the image unless of course it is "awful"
There is a difference between critiquing and nitpicking. :(
This was my "accurate" and "responsive" reply. I didn't see the need for an abrasive reply?
-
That's enough, children. Turn out the lights and go to sleep.
-
That's enough, children. Turn out the lights and go to sleep.
New moderator?
-
New moderator?
Naah - the Topic Parent.
-
dreed,
Does anyone know how saturation of images varies with altitude? I have observed that the sky is "bluer" higher up...
The sky appears more blue because there is less air to scatter light.
...does it work the same for other colors too?
Link (http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/93676).
-
Yeah, if you fly high enough you can see the stars in full daylight. I have never been flying high enough…
Best regards
Erik
dreed,
The sky appears more blue because there is less air to scatter light.
Link (http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/93676).
-
Thanks to all for comments :D I hope I have opened some eyes for what the Dolomites can provide from a photographic point of view. Yes, I do workshops in the Dolomites, but I also like to just open up the eyes of the world for these amazing mountains for those who did know about the Dolomites.
-
I have never been to the Dolomites, but I have spent six weeks in Tuscany several years ago. When I saw your Dolomites images, I was inclined to side with those who claimed you had boosted the saturation way too much. But your Tuscany images, while a bit more colorful than I would have processed them, at least were convincing and believable from my own experience.
Seeing the Tuscany images after seeing the Dolomites ones made me rethink my own assessment of the Dolomites images. I do hope I can get there some day to see for myself. If I do, I'll be sure to bring sunglasses in case the colors are too overwhelming. ;)
Thanks for sharing both sets.
Eric
-
Hi Eric,
Hans is always in search of magic light.
Regarding saturation and processing, I would say that we try to convey an impression.
I recall that on the Dolomites West workshop I took part in there was a guy who in general made a very dark interpretation of images.
On the latest Dolomites East I took part we had a guy called Ken Carlson who made two exhibits of his images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65227442@N05/sets/72157660793126395/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65227442@N05/sets/72157660792393905/
I have a much less artistic view: https://echophoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Dolomites-2015/i-khp4Nnc
Best regards
Erik
I have never been to the Dolomites, but I have spent six weeks in Tuscany several years ago. When I saw your Dolomites images, I was inclined to side with those who claimed you had boosted the saturation way too much. But your Tuscany images, while a bit more colorful than I would have processed them, at least were convincing and believable from my own experience.
Seeing the Tuscany images after seeing the Dolomites ones made me rethink my own assessment of the Dolomites images. I do hope I can get there some day to see for myself. If I do, I'll be sure to bring sunglasses in case the colors are too overwhelming. ;)
Thanks for sharing both sets.
Eric
-
Erik,
On the latest Dolomites East I took part we had a guy called Ken Carlson who made two exhibits of his images:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65227442@N05/sets/72157660793126395/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65227442@N05/sets/72157660792393905/
The above links are broken.