Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: DwayneOakes on May 30, 2014, 12:40:06 am
-
Thanks for taking a look !
Dwayne Oakes
-
This is a nice image, the veil of the water is well depicted. I do find the tones a tad towards a greenish-yellowish cast?
-
Beautiful Image of water wall.
-
Thank you very much for the comments everyone ! I really appreciate it !
-
This is a nice image, the veil of the water is well depicted. I do find the tones a tad towards a greenish-yellowish cast?
I think all of your images posted to date have been great explorations of nature's details, but they have also suffered from having a subtle, and seemingly unnatural, warm yellow-red tone. I think it was Slobodan that pointed out the connection to the Foveon sensor, but whether it is that or a slightly blue monitor, your photos would benefit from some consideration given to colour correction.
This photo may be "naturally" yellow-green due to the limestone, the light and the moss, but to the objective observer, the colour cast detracts from the image.
I often find the colour of the limestone (and often the streams flowing over it) in southern Ontario to be slightly on the insipid side. A case in point is your previous image "Crayfish", where the rock is almost orange. It's not your fault, but it doesn't help the photograph either. For this reason, when shooting along the Escarpment I will often slightly "correct" the colour cast of the rock with a subtle application of cool tones with an adjustment brush (real experimentation needed here due to the range of tones) or I work on seeing and producing the photographs in black & white. I'll get off the iPad and attach a couple of examples.
-
I think all of your images posted to date have been great explorations of nature's details, but they have also suffered from having a subtle, and seemingly unnatural, warm yellow-red tone. I think it was Slobodan that pointed out the connection to the Foveon sensor, but whether it is that or a slightly blue monitor, your photos would benefit from some consideration given to colour correction.
This photo may be "naturally" yellow-green due to the limestone, the light and the moss, but to the objective observer, the colour cast detracts from the image.
I often find the colour of the limestone (and often the streams flowing over it) in southern Ontario to be slightly on the insipid side. A case in point is your previous image "Crayfish", where the rock is almost orange. It's not your fault, but it doesn't help the photograph either. For this reason, when shooting along the Escarpment I will often slightly "correct" the colour cast of the rock with a subtle application of cool tones with an adjustment brush (real experimentation needed here due to the range of tones) or I work on seeing and producing the photographs in black & white. I'll get off the iPad and attach a couple of examples.
Great cc, thank you ! I will give it try on the next set.
-
Some WB adjustments any better on the Y/G color cast ?
-
and another one
-
Your last foto is very enjoyable. Maybe the issue is there's a primordial taboo about greenish/cast water ?
-
Your last foto is very enjoyable. Maybe the issue is there's a primordial taboo about greenish/cast water ?
Thank you very much for the comments ! I think the Y/G is natural from trees from above and moss from below
and not the sensor, It does not show up in my winter images with the same WB setting ? that said Terry brings up a
good point it could detract from the image. It is an easy fix.
-
Thank you very much for the comments ! I think the Y/G is natural from trees from above and moss from below
and not the sensor, It does not show up in my winter images with the same WB setting ? that said Terry brings up a
good point it could detract from the image. It is an easy fix.
Sure, but IMO I'd rather see what you saw, not what I expect. Of course "corrections" are fine if you prefer them.
-
Good point Scott !
-
Sure, but IMO I'd rather see what you saw, not what I expect. Of course "corrections" are fine if you prefer them.
That's an interesting point, Scott. To an extent, I'd agree; but if the "real" colours / colour casts are unsettling to the extent that they spoil the impact of the image, and they aren't intended to be a feature, perhaps they're best removed. I know there are purists who will object, just as they'd object to cloning out a rock which gets in the way, but I take the view that we're producing things that bring pleasure to the viewer, not documentary shots.
Jeremy
-
That's an interesting point, Scott. To an extent, I'd agree; but if the "real" colours / colour casts are unsettling to the extent that they spoil the impact of the image, and they aren't intended to be a feature, perhaps they're best removed. I know there are purists who will object, just as they'd object to cloning out a rock which gets in the way, but I take the view that we're producing things that bring pleasure to the viewer, not documentary shots.
Jeremy
Agreed, Jeremy - the purists aren't artists but ideologues who believe nature is static. The rock that's here today will be gone "tomorrow" - swept away in a flood or eroded over time or moved by some kid looking for treasures. Photographers who tie themselves to puritan ideas about not cropping nor cloning nor altering colour cast, etc. are slaves to this concept that nothing changes in nature and slaves to the engineers who designed their equipment and the algorithms that run it.
Once you choose to make even one slight change to the way the camera spat out the photo (one slight exposure or contrast adjustment), then you must accept that any change is an acceptable decision to make provided it flows from the will of the artist. Otherwise, with the myriad options available, where could one possibly draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable (pure and unpure) except on the basis of what "works" for the photograph and the photographer's artistic vision? If the photographer chooses to define their vision as "purist" then they must accept that no changes are permitted to the raw file or JPEG from the camera. Wow what a cop out; what a waste of the creative energy that helps define us as individuals and as humans!
The ”can't change anything after exposure" camp is an artificial throw back to amateur film days when the average photographer couldn't change very much because it was too laborious, so they created this "rule": "If I can't change anything, no one should". Transparency photographers were the most dogmatic for obvious reasons. I remember when one photographer showed slides he had very pleasingly cropped using foil tape. The photographers in the audience were outraged - but he held fast to his belief that we are artists and reserve the right to make those decisions. Surprisingly, the non-photographers, mostly spouses, had no trouble with the cropping.
The myth of it is that amateur photographers and a few purist pros were the only ones following this ideal as the likes of National Geographic (and all the other popular photo magazines) were routinely making significant darkroom alterations to photos (hmmmm, let's move that pyramid over there where it works better, or, more simply, "let's raise the contrast here and hold back the exposure there"). Alterations have been made to photographs since the first photographs were made in a darkroom! Meanwhile the public naively believed this purist ideal applied to all photographs they saw, so are always taken aback when they learn quite the opposite is true.
Sorry folks, photography is art. You can start with a blank canvas and build the photograph you see in your mind's eye, or you can go through life documenting and recording and hide behind this mythical purist ideal.
-
Bravo, Terry!!!
-
Four or five years ago I was sitting in the Dr's office lobby waiting for a routine appointment. I was reading Arizona Highways magazine. Just inside the front cover was a long, drawn out apology to the readers for accidentally allowing the publication of a cover photo that had been manipulated. As I recall, the readers were assured that they would never buy another photo from the offending photographer. They showed the original capture and the modified image side-by-side. The photographer had used Photoshop to remove a small twig that intersected with a more interesting feature. Someone else might have pulled their garden shears out of their pack and removed the twig, but this photographer left the twig and removed it in post. Otherwise, the image had not been cropped and the colors appeared to be untouched.
-
Four or five years ago I was sitting in the Dr's office lobby waiting for a routine appointment. I was reading Arizona Highways magazine. Just inside the front cover was a long, drawn out apology to the readers for accidentally allowing the publication of a cover photo that had been manipulated. As I recall, the readers were assured that they would never buy another photo from the offending photographer. They showed the original capture and the modified image side-by-side. The photographer had used Photoshop to remove a small twig that intersected with a more interesting feature. Someone else might have pulled their garden shears out of their pack and removed the twig, but this photographer left the twig and removed it in post. Otherwise, the image had not been cropped and the colors appeared to be untouched.
This sounds rather extremist! I am curious how they ever determined that one small change had been made? I also wonder if they realized the photographer may have adjusted the exposure, contrast, white balance or even cropped the image. Shame! Oh right, the magazine probably cropped the image to make it fit the the aspect ratio of the cover. What bunch of hypocrites! Imagine if this same magazine were ever to publish a painting then discover later the artist left out a small twig! OMG! Arizona ought to pass a law...
-
"You can start with a blank canvas and build the photograph you see in your mind's eye, or you can go through life documenting and recording and hide behind this mythical purist ideal. "
Excellent discussion. The only word I would quibble with is "or". Everyone decides how far down the processing road they want to go with each image. The artifice starts with the composition.
-
There was a very prolific writer many years ago named Corey Ford. He wrote a lot of different things, history, journalism, humor. He was a screenwriter during the 1930s. He was commissioned in the Army during World War II and wrote a book called War Below Zero about the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands. Anyway, he is probably best remembered for writing a monthly humorous column in Field and Stream Magazine called The Lower Forty. In one of the columns he described a purist; A purist is someone who goes to great lengths to deny themselves a little pleasure.
-
There was a very prolific writer many years ago named Corey Ford. He wrote a lot of different things, history, journalism, humor. He was a screenwriter during the 1930s. He was commissioned in the Army during World War II and wrote a book called War Below Zero about the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands. Anyway, he is probably best remembered for writing a monthly humorous column in Field and Stream Magazine called The Lower Forty. In one of the columns he described a purist; A purist is someone who goes to great lengths to deny themselves a little pleasure.
Good one David. I am on a lesser photo editing kick right now in the craft letting nature stand on its own merit with very
little software intervention, so I guess my vision right now is more of a natural look to my work kinda of like a film look with no
darkroom dodge or burn if that makes sense, not sure if that is purist or not, I don't even crop in editing only in the field.
-
Four or five years ago … I was reading Arizona Highways magazine. Just inside the front cover was a long, drawn out apology to the readers for accidentally allowing the publication of a cover photo that had been manipulated.
…I also wonder if they realized the photographer may have adjusted the exposure, contrast, white balance or even cropped the image. Shame! Oh right, the magazine probably cropped the image to make it fit the the aspect ratio of the cover. What bunch of hypocrites! Imagine if this same magazine were ever to publish a painting then discover later the artist left out a small twig! OMG! Arizona ought to pass a law...
Terry, have you actually seen that magazine article?
Sounds to me like you've rushed to denounce others as hypocrites based on nothing more than someone else's vague recollection.
I haven't been able to track-down anything that matches the apology description, but I did stumble across -- "The Right Touch (http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/utils/getfile/collection/aho/id/85/filename/86.pdf): Photoshop has become a household word. At this magazine, however, it's something we use sparingly. This month we used it on the cover. Here's why." pdf page 9 (http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/utils/getfile/collection/aho/id/85/filename/86.pdf).
-
This thread is the perfect example of why folks don't post images on here like they used to.
Why would anyone want to subject themselves to the self appointed critics? Can't folks just enjoy a photograph without the urge to point our what's "wrong" with it?
I am a firm believer that in a setting like this, critique shouldn't be offered unless it's specifically requested.
If you want to critique something, great. Feel free. Just then resist the urge to type out your critique and hit the "post" button...
-
It seems pretty simple to me. If it's posted in the "Critiques" section, it's reasonable to suppose that a critique is requested.
If it's posed anywhere else (such as in "Landscape & Nature Photography," for example), then a critique should not be given unless one is specifically asked for.
-
I think it's worth noting that the person who posted the photograph welcomed all the comments with good grace.
Duly noted, but that doesn't mean he ASKED for the comments.
-
There was a very prolific writer many years ago named Corey Ford. He wrote a lot of different things, history, journalism, humor. He was a screenwriter during the 1930s. He was commissioned in the Army during World War II and wrote a book called War Below Zero about the Japanese in the Aleutian Islands. Anyway, he is probably best remembered for writing a monthly humorous column in Field and Stream Magazine called The Lower Forty. In one of the columns he described a purist; A purist is someone who goes to great lengths to deny themselves a little pleasure.
Right On!
To borrow from Farley Mowatt - Never let a few twigs get in the way of a good picture
-
You and your ilk who are driven to demonstrate, at all costs, your superior knowledge and skill are why this forum is useless as a learning forum.
-
You and your ilk who are driven to demonstrate, at all costs, your superior knowledge and skill are why this forum is useless as a learning forum.
I frequently see much that I could learn about photography in this forum; most of which simply adds to my awareness of things I really don't know about, although occasionally a crumb of information sticks.
I never see much to like about bad-mouthing those who aren't present in this forum to defend themselves, whether they be deceased photographers or magazine photo-editors.
-
As photographs (without cloning) taken on successive days would demonstrate that nature was not static, your "ideologues who believe nature is static" remark is pure bombast.
Even if some photographers were "ideologues who believe nature is static" that's no reason to think that those hypothetical individuals would not consider themselves to be artists, or that others would not consider them to be artists.
Once you accept breaking the speed limit, then you must accept murder?
Sorry Terry, photography is a big big world and you're being just as self-righteous as the hypothetical nameless faceless individuals you choose to mock.
Gee, I wondered what was up. I think I've posted about a dozen comments lately without Isaac jumping all over me.
I can always count on Isaac for setting me straight. I honestly can't believe I wrote such drivel. Pity me!
You are right Isaac. Always right!
-
Terry,
The Ignore User function is your friend.
Rand
-
Perhaps you posted a dozen comments without bad-mouthing anyone.
Not a criticism which could be levelled at you, that's for sure.
Jeremy
-
I LOVE the "Ignore User" function!
-
Not a criticism which could be levelled at you, that's for sure.
It's easy enough to make insinuations but criticism doesn't really work until you show examples.
Arizona Highways magazine's explanation of one cover image is somewhat interesting ("The Right Touch" pdf page 9 (http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/utils/getfile/collection/aho/id/85/filename/86.pdf)).
-
Perhaps you posted a dozen comments without bad-mouthing anyone.
Isaac, I've said a lot things on this forum, but I have never bad-mouthed anyone - ever! Constructive criticism of the type I've provided is done tactfully and with only good intentions, and, from what I'm reading, it is appreciated.
-
My finger is itching on the Lock Thread button - or should I split it off at the top of page 2 and re-title it the Wailing Wall and transfer it to the nether regions of the CoffeeCorner?
Please move on.
-
I've now heard how someone could feel they have "never bad-mouthed anyone" and also denounce "What bunch of hypocrites!"
All that matters is that it might have been true.
There's no acceptance of the responsibility to find out if it is true, and so nothing to correct or apologize for. That isn't how I'd like to be treated and I don't believe it's how Terry would like to be treated.
Moving on.