Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on July 08, 2012, 12:24:31 am
-
If the same stitched file was imported into LR, how close to the output of PS would LR get?
Are there any tutorials or documents which cover "if you do this with a layer in photoshop then you do it like that in lightroom"?
Update: I realise that some adjustments in photoshop cannot be replicated in lightroom, but some can (obviously) and others... I don't know as there doesn't seem to be a very obvious equivalence when it gets to things light saturation, hue, luminance, etc.
-
That's a tough one - you might be best contacting Peter and asking :-)
The links provided to the mags that he edits should have ways to contact him.
-
I suppose the question that I'm really asking is "Is it possible to get Peter Eastway or Alan Briot to do a followup to their articles on image editing with Photoshop where they try and produce a picture using only Lightroom that is as close to the Photoshop image as possible?"
... Or does it take someone with the same skill level in Lightroom to do that as they have in Photoshop? (Unless they're both equally proficient with both applications.)
The motivating factor behind this is in the first instance money (needing to buy application instead of two), in the second instance work flow (where all of the image editing, history, etc, is done inside a single application rather than multiple) and finally knowledge, where if I can just use one then I don't need to divide my time spent reading, learning and becoming proficient with both.
-
I have found that when stitching, it is difficult to do much in the way of adjustments in LR or ACR without risk of not being able to get a seamless stitch. While many of the things can be done in LR, the critical factor is a seamless stitch. Creating a file similar to the tutorial makes it much easier to accomplish this.
Also while LR can accomplish many similar things, photoshop layer masking is still unequaled in it's ability to control adjustments to very specific regions. Some images are best tackled with a low contrast tiff file containing all the data then tweaked much like Peter's example.
He is far better skilled than I am at these, and his articles have given me a few insights as to ways to improve my own efforts. I really enjoy these type of articles that break down a process like this.
For quite some time I moved away from using Photoshop for most images, I have found over the last year i've been going the other direction, nearly every final image ends up in Photoshop for tweaking. Perhaps easier for me since I only get a few keepers per shoot (hopefully).
-
Peter's a Photoshop wizard, that's for sure. Read any of this mags and there are regular articles showing techniques and workflows.
A follow up article sounds like a great idea - I'd suggest emailing Michael and/or Peter, but I suspect Wayne is right that it's going to be far more difficult to achieve due to the inherent complexity of the stitching. That doesn't make it impossible, though.
It would also be interesting to have an article from Les Walkling, who is a colour guru and all-round nice guy!
-
In some ways, there's not much difference between Photoshop and Lightroom. I could also add in Aperture, Capture One and Nik Software. And Photoshop Elements which does 80% of the things I need to do. All these programs let you play with the exposure, contrast and colour, and that's essentially what I am using. The challenge is in the degree of control that is offered over where you place the changes.
In Lightroom, I think I could adjust this file (after it had been stitched) in a similar way with its Adjustment Brush - because most of the adjustment areas are made with simple shapes. The main challenge with LR is creating the 'masks' that control where the changes are applied. LR only has a circular brush or an Auto Mask to choose from. While you can do it, it can take quite a lot of time for fiddly work and I'm quicker in Photoshop. Photoshop also has a few tools and adjustments that aren't the same in LR, but essentially both programs can do what is needed.
For changing big areas of sky or foreground, LR (and Capture One) works a treat, but for fine detail or where you have lots of angles (like buildings and individual trees), then PS with its channels, selections and masks is more powerful.
When I am doing a shoot, I travel with a Sony Vaio loaded with PS, LR and Capture One. Shooting with Phase One most of the time, I process my files on the road in Capture One and use its Adjustments Brush to make simple edits so I can get a feeling for where the file is heading. I also use LR in the same way (and yes, I use both programs from time to time as I write about both - and they are both great and also have some unique features, so I need to use both....)
I can also output these quickly processed files and upload to my blog etc. Down small, they look great and little errors are hidden. However, for my art pieces which can be enlarged to a metre or more, I then take the file into Photoshop when back home and do it more carefully - and I can take my time about it. I find thinking time is very important at the end of the image making process...
-
In Lightroom, I think I could adjust this file (after it had been stitched) in a similar way with its Adjustment Brush - because most of the adjustment areas are made with simple shapes. The main challenge with LR is creating the 'masks' that control where the changes are applied. LR only has a circular brush or an Auto Mask to choose from. While you can do it, it can take quite a lot of time for fiddly work and I'm quicker in Photoshop. Photoshop also has a few tools and adjustments that aren't the same in LR, but essentially both programs can do what is needed.
For changing big areas of sky or foreground, LR (and Capture One) works a treat, but for fine detail or where you have lots of angles (like buildings and individual trees), then PS with its channels, selections and masks is more powerful.
I think that answers my question.
Thanks Peter!
-
Peter, thanks for the interesting insight into the process behind the process - so to speak.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
hello Peter , thank you very much for this tutorial!
I am using Photoshop a lot, but the blendmodes are rarely used because i just do not know how to deal with them.
For instance i was not aware you can use them as you do on curves.
If you can point me out to a place i can learn even more about these blendmodes and how to use them, i would be grateful !
Pieter Kers
-
There's a great book by David Biedny, Bert Monroy and Nathan Moody called Photoshop Channel Chops. I had a copy in 1998/1999 but I couldn't really relate to it at that stage. Don't know where I put it! I recently bought a secondhand copy on Amazon and it's amazing how much of it is still relevant. I am told a lot of the 'expert' advice you see written about channels and blend modes includes this book in the bibliography, so depending how keen you are, it could be worth a read.
For a slightly less intensive discussion, I've attached a .pdf from an article I wrote several years ago on layer blend modes in one of my magazines. It should give you a good start. My website (www.betterphotography.com) also has some bits and pieces on it, but so does Luminous Landscape and I'll be surprised if Michael doesn't have some introductory articles on blend modes somewhere on the site.
I'm no technical expert on these things, but I can show you how I use them. The science I will leave to more learned people to explain! In the meantime, I'll see if I can upload the pdf!
-
Peter, thanks again…and for your very instructive pdf.
In surge of good books about photoshop i just bought the book...
For me the channels are really the basics of photoshop. So knowing some more about them will surely be of good help.
-
Just wanted to echo my thanks in your uploading of the article, and your responses here. My post processing in photoshop involved duplicating the layer, editing it and soft erasing the parts of the photo I don't out from that layer. I wonder if layer adjustments is just one of the many ways one can perform the identical process in photoshop, or if indeed layer adjustment masks are the better way?
-
Am I the only one who feels this shot is a little 'overcooked'...??
Obviously with some adept marketing this is a valuable shot,...and I do appreciate that 'nobody lost money by underestimating human taste',...but, would it not have been better to have stopped at 'stage3' or perhaps 4 ..? As viewers we are bound by our experience and one would not really see an over saturated landscape with a cold sky, so the effect is rather fake to me,...Perhaps it IS just my perspective.....
Of course this is the eternal question about how much 'darkroom work' a shot can take and is as old as photography itself, but I would be most interested in peoples thinking especially that of Peter himself.
-
Am I the only one who feels this shot is a little 'overcooked'...??.....
It is just a matter of personal taste and style…For sure the style is more magic-realistic than realistic... For me It leans against the highly processed HDR photographs… I am not a big fan of those myself. Still the techniques can be used in every strength you like. In the case of this tutorial it demonstrates the effects of the photoshop treatment very well..
-
Am I the only one who feels this shot is a little 'overcooked'...??
Nope; I completely agree. To my eye 'Pilbara Storm' has gone far past the point of emphasis or interpretation and is akin to one of Peter Lik's neon confections. And I don't mean that as a compliment.
I find that I feel the same way about much of Alain Briot's work. Many of the images are quite striking at first glance, but color saturation and manipulation of contrast is frequently so over the top that one could walk past the original subject in identical light and never recognize it. I suspect Mr. Briot might say "But that's the whole point! That's what makes it art!" I would politely disagree.
There are countless images on Flickr with the same aesthetic: saturation/vibrance slider yanked to the far right, aggressive shadow/highlight moves or HDR applied to create a stunning first impression; neon green foliage or red soil/rocks, crazy dramatic skies....it's like a steady diet of cotton candy or chocolate. Sure, it's great for the first five minutes. But after half a day the stomach ache sets in. And after a week you can't button up your pants anymore.
There's no accounting for taste, and people are absolutely free to do whatever they want in the name of art. But such cloying, sickly sweet interpretations seem to miss the subtlety photography is capable of. This was the opinion of Edward Weston circa 1920, when gauzy, self-consciously 'artistic' pictorialism had taken over photographic art. This kind of self-consciously arty neon color work feels the same to me as pictorialism, and not in a good way.
-
Am I the only one who feels this shot is a little 'overcooked'...??
If the image is designed for a 2 metre print, then you simply can't say by looking at an 18cm version, possibly not colour managed. Though there are always folks who won't let that get in the way.
I would love to see the full sized version of this.
-
....There's no accounting for taste, and people are absolutely free to do whatever they want in the name of art. But ......
Like you have all styles and ways to make a painting, it is the same with photographs... there is no but... fortunately ...
-
I know my work polarizes people - but at least I am noticed! Personally, unless you have been to the Pilbara it is hard to comment on whether my colours are overcooked. You know the ground is red when you see a magenta tinge underneath the clouds. I used to think this was bad processing (in film days) until I saw it myself. It is way more red than the American west which many readers will be familiar with. So, to my mind the colours are exactly right.
I think the best observation is that layers lets you go as far as you want to. Have a look at a YouTube video I have done http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-R46ZD2Dhnk
I'm sure some of you will think I have gone too far with some of them!
-
Peter does have a point.
In Australia there is nothing subtle about the palette of colour one could be confronted with.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Having been to the region (Pilbara) many times, and throughout regional Australia for most of my life, I think that Peter's colours are accurate both in a literal sense and an emotional sense. The images are dramatic, but that's how it feels!
-
I know my work polarizes people - but at least I am noticed!
(Humour) “Of course, you know the adage, if you can’t make it good, make it big. If you can’t make it big, make it red. So we do like big red photographs.”
New York Times - December 3, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/arts/design/03GEFT.html)
-
Some interesting replies and attitudes so far.......
Personally, I don't, and have never, thought that photography either can or should be bound by the same criteria as graphic art,....while a work of art can utilise 'artists licence', a different set of 'rules' exists for photography due to the unwritten parameters that society places upon it........
Unfortunately, once a photograph crosses the line into looking 'fake' it's integrity is lost for me.....and, it woul dhave been better for the photographer to have set aside his camera and reached for brushes and canvas.
As members of western societies we are bombarded from morning to night with highly skilled image making, and, without any concious thought we are all expert at interpreting images. In recent times the verb 'to photoshop' has passed into common English usage just as a previous generation finally accepted the verb 'to airbrush'. Sadly these phrases are not usually employed positively, especially by non-photographers.
Fortunately, it is not inscribed on any tablet of stone that photography has to be realistic,..but it IS an unwritten rule that it must at least tempt the viewer to believe,...and Pilbara Storm does not do so, for me anyway.....
I'm quite sure that the over dramatic treatment will enable large sales if the right gallery space can be aquired and prints might well sell for large sums,........and, in a few months or years, for much lesser sums in a street market near to you. The people who will love this are not going to see the incongruity of the piece, or question the non-reality of sky with landscape, it's only the drama that speaks momentarily....and that came from photoshop.
-
Some interesting replies and attitudes so far.......
Personally, I don't, and have never, thought that photography either can or should be bound by the same criteria as graphic art,....while a work of art can utilise 'artists licence', a different set of 'rules' exists for photography due to the unwritten parameters that society places upon it........
Unfortunately, once a photograph crosses the line into looking 'fake' it's integrity is lost for me.....and, it woul dhave been better for the photographer to have set aside his camera and reached for brushes and canvas.
As members of western societies we are bombarded from morning to night with highly skilled image making, and, without any concious thought we are all expert at interpreting images. In recent times the verb 'to photoshop' has passed into common English usage just as a previous generation finally accepted the verb 'to airbrush'. Sadly these phrases are not usually employed positively, especially by non-photographers.
Fortunately, it is not inscribed on any tablet of stone that photography has to be realistic,..but it IS an unwritten rule that it must at least tempt the viewer to believe,...and Pilbara Storm does not do so, for me anyway.....
I'm quite sure that the over dramatic treatment will enable large sales if the right gallery space can be aquired and prints might well sell for large sums,........and, in a few months or years, for much lesser sums in a street market near to you. The people who will love this are not going to see the incongruity of the piece, or question the non-reality of sky with landscape, it's only the drama that speaks momentarily....and that came from photoshop.
Agreed. This image isn't quite as bad as others showcased here thoughf or example the making of sugarloaf rock http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_making_of_sugarloaf_rock.shtml
-
... Maybe, in this iPhone instagram age, non-photographers think it's ordinary to make their snapshots moody?
Or, perhaps, in this everyone-is-photographer age, where everyone can produce a decent, "normal" photograph, people would prefer to see photographs that THEY can not make? That is, photographs beyond "normal" and real, hence the popularity of Instagrams, HDRs and obviously photoshopped images. Perhaps people want to escape from reality? Isn't that the the same reason beyond the popularity of Sci-Fi, fairy tales, historic fantasies, imaginary friends?
-
(... the technical skills required to post-process that photograph into something else entirely are also now vastly less...
I would compare it to English language: many speak it, few well.
-
I would compare it to English language: many speak it, few well.
+1.
-
Unfortunately, once a photograph crosses the line into looking 'fake' it's integrity is lost for me.....and, it woul dhave been better for the photographer to have set aside his camera and reached for brushes and canvas.
Unfortunately, not everybody is as skilled with brushes as with Photoshop sliders. And even worse, there are just too many "artistic" plugins to experiment with.
-
It's a classic response, I know, but I hope all these people who seem to object to Peter's shot also object to Ansel Adams and, well, pretty much any black and white (since that's NOT how it looked, obviously).
-
......I don't know the work of Adams especially well since I'm English, however those of his images that I have seen reproduced are quite acceptable because, unlike Pilbara Storm, the artifice does not overshadow the content.
Viewers of B/W photographs (in western societies) understand that they are looking at a scene which has been rendered into monotone from any natural colouring,...as I mentioned before; western society is very skilled at interpretation of image, often without understanding why or how. However, in photography believability is everything and Pilbara Storm does not have it.......
-
I'm curious - have you actually been to the Pilbara, or outback Australia, generally?
Anyway, we won't agree, as you're in favour of literalism for photography (which is fine).
BTW, Adam's work (and I'm not American either) could hardly be described as "photorealistic", yet he's quite rightly one of the most celebrated photographers.
-
I am with Phil here.
No-one is denying, least of all Peter Eastway, that the image has been processed according to a style that Peter Eastway favours.
The believability of the result is completely another issue.
Actually the reds found in the Pilbara, not to mention large parts of inland Australia (often referred to as the "Red Centre") are absolutely extraordinary.
Along with Phil I happen to be a local (Australian as opposed to West Australian where the Pilbara is actually located) and I have actually visited these places (with camera in hand) and can attest first hand to the amazing reds.
Perhaps I sound a bit like a travel agent here but you could do worse than bring you and your camera on a trip "Down Under" to photograph the amazing deserts and savannahs of Australia. I am due to spend five weeks in the Kimberleys (also in Western Australia) shortly with the sole purpose of shooting the country. Unfortunately I won't make to the Pilbara on this trip but I promise you it is high on the "bucket list".
Regards
Tony Jay
-
I'm jealous of your 5 week trip, Tony :-)
-
I'm jealous of your 5 week trip, Tony :-)
Yes, hard to think about it without drooling!
Regards
Tony Jay
-
......I don't know the work of Adams especially well since I'm English, however those of his images that I have seen reproduced are quite acceptable because, unlike Pilbara Storm, the artifice does not overshadow the content.
Viewers of B/W photographs (in western societies) understand that they are looking at a scene which has been rendered into monotone from any natural colouring,...as I mentioned before; western society is very skilled at interpretation of image, often without understanding why or how. However, in photography believability is everything and Pilbara Storm does not have it.......
This got me to thinking about the many photographs I've seen of "Red Rock" country in the southwestern U.S.A. In New England where I live I have never seen any rock that isn't some shade of gray. So color photos of Red Rock scenes would look much more believable to me if the reds were changed to gray while other colors were left alone (skies blue, foliage green, etc.)
I've never been to Pilbara, but I find Eastway's rendering quite plausible.
-
This got me to thinking about the many photographs I've seen of "Red Rock" country in the southwestern U.S.A. In New England where I live I have never seen any rock that isn't some shade of gray. So color photos of Red Rock scenes would look much more believable to me if the reds were changed to gray while other colors were left alone (skies blue, foliage green, etc.)
I've never been to Pilbara, but I find Eastway's rendering quite plausible.
I find this self querying thought insightful ....and inspirational toward a vision past surface and obvious... there will always be the battle of why we photograph, what a photograph is or should be...but there is so much more ...the expression of exuberance of the moment as we experienced it at the time or during the time of wait and seeing more deeply. Yes, there are the old tunes of not the score , but the performance, but even that partial expression of how Ansel actually was fighting out these questions in his mind, alongside others in the short-lived group 64, during the battles leading up to the first MoMA exhibits etc, to say nothing of the arrival on scene of Edwin Land ( Land camera ) and how this helped to inform in the pre-visualization
-
I find this self querying thought insightful ....and inspirational toward a vision past surface and obvious... there will always be the batttle of why we photograph, what a photograph is or should be...but there is so much more ...the expression of exuberance of the moment as we experienced it at the time or during the time of wait and seeing more deeply. Yes, there are the old tunes of not the score , but the performance, but even that partial expression of howAnsel actually was fighting out these questions in his mind, alongside others in the short-lived group 64, during the battles leading up to thefirst MoMA exhibits etc, to say nothing of the arrival on scene of Edwin Land ( Land camera ) and how this help to inform in the pre-visualation
...in the pre-visualization of intent or moment...mix the viewpoints and approach of Minor White and Jerry Uelsmann and this is a place of extreme possibility and richness if we are willing to step back long enough to really see, and then move to the expression of that which excites us...
As an aside, as I have been relocated to Boston the last months from CT to help in the care of my husband through challenging surgeries, I have been able to slip away from time to time to poke around through some
-
...wonderful exhibits at the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem MA. A side of Ansel of which many have never been aware, including an expression of his exhuberance early in life (1920) that said it all for me...The family owns and does not exhibit that print but a negative print on loan from Arizona is on view. Sitting in hospitals I took the time to read the Letters : Ansel Adams 1916-1984. Unbelievably informing and illiminating... then also on view is the Jerry Uelsmann exhibit as part of the PEM Photographic summer.... We, and our "sticky" viewpoints and beliefs are easily opened and expanded moving back and forth through the somewhat unknown Adams work and the travels well after the foundation images are gathered in the magical travels of Uelsmann...just a thought if anyone is up this way for some very pleasant vision openers...
have missed you all, and even thinking in black and white I find my dreams requiring a wratten to get back there on awakening...
affectionate greeting to all, Pat
-
It's good to have you back on Lula, Patricia!
I saw the Uelsmann exhibit at PEM before Ansel's show went up, and I expect to get to Ansel soon.
As for youthful exuberance, I hope you sat through Uelsmann's early film on eating spaghetti.
Ansel and Jerry and Minor all pushed at the boundaries of expression, each in his own powerful way.
I hope your husband has a speedy recovery.
Eric
-
Photorealistic....
Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?
We have just been brought up with BW images that is why we find it more realistic than say saturated colored ones.
I met a man in the desert. I showed him a picture; he did not see anything in it.
PK
-
Photorealistic....
Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?
This is brought up so many times, but it seems to be an apples to oranges (or perhaps oranges to limes) type of comparison.
Perhaps this choice was mostly about the technical limitations of color processes when he was in his most productive shooting years? And while no one can argue with his greatness and the way he changed landscape photography during his lifetime, does he "define" the art of photography today? I don't say this because I think Peter's image is over the top, just more about seeing this argument brought up countless times to justify doing anything one wants to an image ... the standard "justification" statement.
I think Peter's image is fabulous and I believe he captured the essence and emotion of what he was seeing and feeling at the time far better than his two companions. To me that's one of the most important aspects of allowing a viewer to see through ones eyes, and is the most difficult. I've seen red sand and red rocks, and know how they can take on an almost iridescent glow in the right light. While perhaps he's pushed it a little not many don't, and I love the image. I do get uncomfortable with extreme manipulation of a location (as in the discussion about Alain's article) and feel when I shoot there is an expectation to present an image which is somewhat true to the scene ... especially things that are permanent and not man made. I don't really care if others do it, but I do think it might be nice if they called their work photo-ilustration. Certainly anyone can to what they want, but calling in Ansel's name to try to justify it seems the wrong approach ... if you have to "justify" something, perhaps you are the person needing convincing?
-
I would have less of an issue with it if these 'made' pictures were referred to by their creators are digital art. I don't buy the 'to match the emotion of being there" argument, if a picture needs that much work take a better picture.
-
Wayne, I do agree and I did hesitate to "invoke" Ansel, but the reason it's become trite is because it is a well know, easily referenced sample to make a point - that point being the same one you made about emotion and the same one I had made previously, but which was refuted. Had it been accepted, that would have been the end of the discussion, but when it's refuted with an almost dismissal, I think it is reasonable to bring into consideration the likes of Ansel and say, "well, do you say this is also not a photo"?
Let's face it - how many of us really see each other regularly in ideal modelled light and a creamy bokeh background? But that's a very common and acceptable portrait technique. We don't like it when the Photoshopping takes it into the realm of plastic, but who doesn't make use of some adjustments for effect?
If we want a photo-record, there's nothing wrong with that - it's a record shot. If you want something to evoke art, there's nothign wrong with that - it's an art shot. So on and so on, through the various genres and techniques. They are all still photographs, and let's not for a moment think that film and chemical was never manipulated.
-
I would have less of an issue with it if these 'made' pictures were referred to by their creators are digital art. I don't buy the 'to match the emotion of being there" argument, if a picture needs that much work take a better picture.
Good point, but normally the camera in no way captures what we see and usually is a very poor representation of what we see ... it might not be a matter of a better image, just a way to figure out how to get the data to show what was seen and felt (and certainly that process is interpretive).
Wayne, I do agree and I did hesitate to "invoke" Ansel, but the reason it's become trite is because it is a well know, easily referenced sample to make a point - that point being the same one you made about emotion and the same one I had made previously, but which was refuted. Had it been accepted, that would have been the end of the discussion, but when it's refuted with an almost dismissal, I think it is reasonable to bring into consideration the likes of Ansel and say, "well, do you say this is also not a photo"?
Let's face it - how many of us really see each other regularly in ideal modelled light and a creamy bokeh background? But that's a very common and acceptable portrait technique. We don't like it when the Photoshopping takes it into the realm of plastic, but who doesn't make use of some adjustments for effect?
If we want a photo-record, there's nothing wrong with that - it's a record shot. If you want something to evoke art, there's nothign wrong with that - it's an art shot. So on and so on, through the various genres and techniques. They are all still photographs, and let's not for a moment think that film and chemical was never manipulated.
When I saw your Ansel comment I guess I've just seen it so much lately that I finally "had" to throw in my 0.02 cents. Between the thread on Alain's column and this one pretty much everyone has voiced an opinion, I've sort of stayed out because it's sort of a no one's right/no one's wrong, lose/lose debate. As far as Ansel, I think it's perhaps not so much about being black and white, but about the manipulation with exposure/development in both shooting and printing which makes his work more of an "artistic" endeavor.
-
When I saw your Ansel comment I guess I've just seen it so much lately that I finally "had" to throw in my 0.02 cents. Between the thread on Alain's column and this one pretty much everyone has voiced an opinion, I've sort of stayed out because it's sort of a no one's right/no one's wrong, lose/lose debate. As far as Ansel, I think it's perhaps not so much about being black and white, but about the manipulation with exposure/development in both shooting and printing which makes his work more of an "artistic" endeavor.
I agree on all accounts.
Were it not for having spent most of my childhood travelling around so many of the remote regions of Australia, I may also have kept my mouth shut, but having seen it first hand and having experienced all manner of weather and events over decades I felt that dismissal of Peter's image as somehow unrealistic or overdone was out of place. To each their own opinion, of course, and in particular as to whether or not one likes it. I'm not saying people who don't like it are wrong! I am saying that it is far less "baked" than they might imagine, particularly when you take into account the emotional aspects.
-
Photorealistic....
Ansel Adams pictures are Black and White : Just how realistic is that?
Ask someone that is colour blind?
-
Monochromacy (particularly rod monochromacy) is very rare (even cone monochromacy is rare).
Most colour blind people do not see in "black and white".
-
I see this as largely an issue of degree,...had the photoshoping stopped at 'step 3' or possibly 'step4' everyone would have 'oohed and ahhed' over the result and admired the sensitive treatment and improvement over the original file.
At the end of the day it does not really matter whether the colours at pilbara were, or were not, like those in the final image,.....what matters is that the viewer believes and enjoys the result,..that he/she does NOT go straight into 'fake mode'.......
......I have never been to Pilbara, but, having now googled and researched images for the region, and re-examined the ORIGINAL image, I do (perhaps wrongly) feel that one woulde not see anything like the final image in that place,...the strange unnatural atmosphere and overdone drama are entriely from photoshop,...and, as such, devalue the image from anything other than something that's been 'photoshopped'.
As mentioned before; plenty of people will love 'Pilbara Storm' and it will return money for it's creator, however, I'm surprised that it ( and the previous 'glowing island' fancy) has been given coverage on this site, since other photo 'fads' such as extreme HDR would be no-no's.
-
You're right - it's up to the viewer. There are a lot of people on both sides of the fence and to varying degrees. I think that's enough for anyone to admit that it's a good piece of art, even if they don't personally like it.
-
What does landscape do?
by Les Walkling on March 12, 2012
In my garden, Pigment Print, 111cm x 111cm, 2010
• Landscape as a represented and a presented space, is both a real place and its simulacrum.
• Landscape as an environment, whose historical formation circumscribed by European imperialism, is where we either find or lose ourselves.
• Landscape as a wounded space, devastated by our ‘ecological crisis of reason’ promotes the genocide it betrays.
• Landscape as a cultural medium, naturalises its ideological construction as if it were inevitable and ‘natural’.
• Landscape thus becomes a principle means of enlisting ‘Nature’ in the legitimation of the superiority of modernity.
The task for settler culture, is the bringing into question these contradictions and ambiguity.
PS
(Les was photographing at the same site with Peter as those storms were kicking up...just took a look through link at end of Peter's article and found this ....)