Glencoe, Scotland

[jeremyrh]

Because how it looks on our screens is so far beyond believable that it doesn't appear realistic or deliberate.

For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland

[dennbel]

I will ask again, could you please state the focal length of the shot not just the zoom range of the lens.
Thank you.

[stamper]

For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland

Did you post the wrong image? Compositionally I don't see any comparison between your image and Kevin's. You would have to be standing next to him and trip the shutter at the same time using the same camera etc etc for any comparison to be valid. Then there is the photographer's post processing vision to take into account?

[jeremyrh]

Did you post the wrong image? Compositionally I don't see any comparison between your image and Kevin's. You would have to be standing next to him and trip the shutter at the same time using the same camera etc etc for any comparison to be valid. Then there is the photographer's post processing vision to take into account?

It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing -  by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!

[stamper]

It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing -  by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!

Correct. A few months back I made the suggestion in a thread that it could be possible to post more than one rendering of the same image for the members to make up there own minds about the veracity of a posted image. I was shot down by another member who stated a photographer should have their "vision" of an image that suits them and post only that "vision". In hindsight he was correct. A member who has been on here for a while knows Kevin likes to "enhance" his images in a certain way. It is worth pointing out Kevin didn't post the image in the forum for critique. Isaac did to stir things up. I think some of the remarks aimed at Kevin is unjustified.

[john beardsworth]

Doh. Let's pretend a simple post processing mistake is "vision"....

[NancyP]

Well, I like this B+W rendering.

[Isaac]

…  It was yellow and gold and big blue sky. …

In my understanding, whenever knowing the colours actually matters, we make use of independent reference systems rather than memory; for example: soil color charts, painting the bathroom.

As a child in Scotland, the first time I saw a local bus with the destination "California" was confusing :-)

[Paulo Bizarro]

For all of those that have trouble about the "garish" and "unbelievable" rendition of Kevin's shot:

1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.

2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

For comparison, I guess the similar shot on this page was taken at the same time and using the same tripod holes, and the colours are very significantly different on my screen:
http://www.tnphotography.net/places/scotland

Well, I guess what's "very significantly different" is rather subjective, as I do not see it as such. What I see, in the example you linked, is a slightly overexposed, cooler white balance with an unskilled overuse of Clarity.

In other words, use a warmer white balance, reduce slightly exposure, reduce Clarity and you'd end up with pretty much Kevin's version.

Besides, it is not about what was in front of Kevin's eyes, as measured by Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips. It is about how Kevin saw it. You (rhetorical "you") may or may not like it, it is your prerogative, just as it is Kevin's prerogative to present it the way he saw it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I will ask again, could you please state the focal length of the shot not just the zoom range of the lens.
Thank you.

Hmmm... that sounds rather polite, in spite of being actually rude. It's been less than 24 hours since your initial request; Kevin is traveling and leading a workshop as we speak; he may (or not) have reasons for not posting what you want - insisting on it is not going to change that. Your first post was sufficient.

[stamper]

It's not my image (the second one on the strip below the main image), it's one taken - I am guessing -  by someone else on the same trip as Kevin. It is precisely the photographer's "post processing vision" which is the question!

I don't think you can judge an image in the strip with what it was in reality. In LR there might have been an auto tone preset applied. The default setting in LR is different as to an image straight from a card reader.

[john beardsworth]

For all of those that have trouble about the "garish" and "unbelievable" rendition of Kevin's shot:

1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.

2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?

Of course, believability is important in a photograph. That doesn't mean it should be faithful or an accurate 2D reproduction of the original scene, but eventually manipulation (or a processing error) can compromise believability and produce something that's no longer a photograph. What is it? It depends - it might be a "graphic", illustration, photomontage etc - or a processing mistake.

B&W isn't a faithful or accurate reproduction of the landscape, but here it remains perfectly believable. What's your point?

[Isaac]

Besides, it is not about what was in front of Kevin's eyes, as measured by Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips. It is about how Kevin saw it.

When a color strip is next to foliage and that's the best visual match you can find, that is how you saw it at the time (pace luminous / reflected color); and that might be different to color checker measurements.

In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable?

If the photographer intends the picture to be believable, yes ;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When a color strip is next to foliage and that's the best visual match you can find, that is how you saw it at the time (pace luminous / reflected color); and that might be different to color checker measurements...

Note to self: bring along Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips next time I go out shooting

[jjj]

The colours this Autumn in Sheffield have been pretty impressive, so I can see the Autumnal aspect being possible in the picture. However the sky is more cyan than blue, which indicates something may be off. If image is intended to be realistic that is, if not, does it matter?

[Telecaster]

1. In your opinion, do you think that photography needs to be believable? I am genuinely interested in this. For example, other landscape photographers even stretch/squeeze, remove/add elements in their photos to match their artistic vision.

I'm with Isaac on this one…if your intent is to be believable then there are norms you need to be aware of and follow. Otherwise anything goes.

2. Do you find the B&W version more believable and more faithful to the original landscape?

Yes, but not because it's more believable or faithful in any objective sense. Rather, b&w photography has a long history and over time we've decided on what constitutues believability in a monochrome rendering. Ultimately believability and faithfulness are subjective determinations anyway.

-Dave-

[Isaac]

… a long history and over time we've decided on what constitutes believability in a monochrome rendering.

We believe what we see -- unless something causes us to disbelieve.

B&W provides less data, there's less to-cause-us to disbelieve.

[Isaac]

Note to self: bring along Benjamin Moore bathroom painting color strips next time I go out shooting

Isn't it commonplace for artists to make a colour sketch - to mix and paint blocks of colour that match what they can see - so they can reproduce those colours in their composition?

(No serious photographer uses Benjamin Moore color strips -- Behr color strips are vastly superior.)

[Kevin Raber]

Denbell, I always post the focal length if I have it.  With this image the meta data just recorded the lens used.  Sorry,  it was probably on the wider side of the focal length.

Kevin