DSLRUsers.com

Hi there.
Long time since I've shown you anything, but I've been lurking with the odd comment here & there.
Anyhow, I've received criticism elsewhere for my "boring, dull" photos. Well, boring to some anyway. I've been content reproducing my images that reflect how a scene appeared to me when I took it, that is what I like to achieve.
But it seems that not everyone likes that. Some people must have their HDR, their oversaturated colours, etc.
I'm not a fan of either, especially when a HDR is obvious. I like it to look real.
So anyhow, to try something different, I've had a bit of a play with some images.
Two of these are HDR, and two are not.

I would very much appreciate any feedback on these images, helping me steer my future workflow, whether I try and "pretty things up" or just keep it real.
Do these look real enough, or prettied up?
If they look prettied up, are they still OK?
Can you pick which are HDR's without cheating (exif info still attached I think)?

Thanks for any comments,
Adam.


Mt Anne, southwest Tasmania, with cushion plant and Pandani.


Mt Anne reflected in a tarn.


Rays of sun over Lake Pedder, Tasmania.


Mt Pelion East from a northern plateau.

Straight up, I think #2 and #3 are brilliant.

To start at the beginning, I too am not much of an HDR fan, but at the same time I've seen it done well and I hope to learn the techniques myself after some more experimentation. I think reproducing a scene as you saw it is a perfectly reasonable approach to photography, but in the current world people want pop and impact and not always to see what was there. So you just have to expect not everyone will like what you do, and focusing on doing what you like and doing it well.

Anyway, back to the pics:

#1 I like the saturation in the foreground, but the sky is a tad drab. Sure it was probably a drab day, but it's not that exciting. You could probably push the sky to be more interesting, but it's just as valid to say that drab days give boring skys.

#2 I really like. The sky is lovely here with some clouds for interest, the light is soft and gorgeous, the reflection is brilliant. I don't know how much you have processed this, but it looks like I am seeing what would be there on a perfect day, which to me is a win!

#3 I also really like, those light beams are dramatic and really hold the image together. If there is anything I'd change it's the amount of foreground and even cloud at the top. I'd like to see it with a panoramic crop, losing a bit of each. I think that would strengthen it.

#4 isn't doing a lot for me, not a lot of interest. It's probably more an issue of composition than processing though.

TO be honest, I can't see obviously which are HDR, so I consider that good use of the technique! If I had to guess I'd say #2 and #3

Cheers.

I would not say that your pics are boring Adam.
A lot of people probably only want to see images of the so called perfect day.
What you portray is a more realistic view of Tassie I think.

I would say that your processing is fine on these images as it is difficult to pick any hdr. I think #2 and #1.

#3 has issues with the clouds but that could just be web sizing and pushing the pp a little to far.

hi the 2nd and 3rd are really good
are they hdr images

i dont think you should change your workflow in photoshop if you want to make images prettier just do so as your the artist and your in control with your overall vision with whatever tools you use from the camera to photoshop you should always strive to get the best looking result.

the 1st and 2nd one look dull only because it's shot overcast, theres not much you can do in photoshop to make them look more wow apart from play with the contrast, so they dont count if you compare them to the 2nd and 3rd

but i noticed one thing the greens in image 1 and 2 look hyper real vibrant too so if you tone them down a little they would look more real

Anyhow, I've received criticism elsewhere for my "boring, dull" photos. Well, boring to some anyway. I've been content reproducing my images that reflect how a scene appeared to me when I took it, that is what I like to achieve.

At the end of the day it's more important that the photographer appreciates the images and likes them, gettign critique is very important, imo, to obtain others views on things that migth be missed or ways the images could be improved. I do appreciate the fact that even though you are happy with the way you have taken images, you have deceided to try your hand at slightly different processing - this may be you developing your style even further and evolving as a photographer. I think photography is a fine balance between getting the right composition and the appropriate PP to compliment it, one with out the other equates to a substandard image imo. Some image do not require any PP whilst others need quite some tweaking, for example panos and HDR images..

I think all of your images posted are quite nice, not over done and portray the scenes realistically.

The sun rays over Lake Pedder (which is an awesome shot) is the HDR pick from me - I think it is a shot that without HDR treatment would not convey the real scene, it gets close to the dynamic range of what the eye would see in a scene like that! That shot takles me there!

A crop on the pedder shot would make it awesome imo, a pano style crop to remove some the dead foreground and sky would fix the forementioned issue with teh clouds while also really concentrating the viewers eyes right on the lake and the sun rays..

Mt Pelion East from a northern plateau.

I like this shot, however it needs somethign in the foreground to give it scale or soemthing to lead the eye up to the hill.

Nontheless, I reckon they are all very tidy shots and not the least boring...

Hi Adam,

My take is as follows:

Non of the images look like obvious HDR to me. 2nd and 3rd images are sensational. However:

1 - HDR or similar. Not possible to get any detail out of the far hill to expose that sky correctly.

2 - HDR or similar. The exposure of the reflection is the same as the sky. Normally the reflection will be a little less exposed than the actual sky.

3 - HDR or similar. To much detail in the foreground for those rays to be so well exposed. ie - foreground would normally.

4 - No HDR or similar. Looks like this shot was taken in the middle of the day. Lack of contrast and colour.

By HDR or similar i mean any sort of treatment to lighten up the darker spots of the photo. ie - fill light or recovery in lightroom.

I think a little bit more contrast needed on 3. No need for the foreground to have much detail showing when the rest of the photo is so strong. I would also try and darken the blue sky in 2. Similar sort of effect as using a polarising filter.

My 2 cents.

colin_12 wrote:#3 has issues with the clouds but that could just be web sizing and pushing the pp a little to far.

This is really weird. It was a good image, but not long after posting I realised I'd put up a pretty high def image with no watermark. After adding the watermark to that image the sky looks rubbish, looked better in the finished image.

Thanks all for the comments so far.

My own personal take on these images -
#1 still looks dull & flat to me, a bit of fill light used to bring back the mountain, but balancing the rest after that was difficult, manually darkened the sky a bit, but not much that can be done with it. The greens in the cushion plant were much more vibrant than they appear here.
I really think I need to learn more about post processing, particularly layers and blending bits from one later into another.

#2, HDR of 2 images, pleasing that there is no "obvious" HDR artefact but I got lazy here, I haven't used the RAW data so I haven't fixed the minimal CA that appears where the mountain meets the sky. Otherwise I'm pretty happy with it, it's fairly close to how I remember it.

#3, a HDR of 4 images and it looks totally fake to me. I have a plethora of images from this place, as you would imagine if you were there taking that. Shooting in raw and taking many images as the light changed, bracketing 5 and sometimes 7 exposures each a stop apart. The ground in the foreground is not dead, but is alpine bushes, but my HDR skill does not yet let me bring it out without totally making a fake HDR image. The orange/yellow in the sun rays is pumped too much, the sky isn't too bad in the fullsize image but as stated, adding the watermark seems to have stuffed the image somehow so I'll come back to that.
These were taken in Feb '08 and I'm just getting round to doing something with them, a bit slack there.

For now, here is a closer image, as taken, +/-0, basic jpg from camera and a small rotate & crop (+0.4)
Looks too dark, but has a great moodiness.


#4, close to the mark, a bit of artificial darkening in the sky, a better exposure as the foreground was in sunshine so the sky isn't so washed out & hard to recover.
Here and Here are another couple of images I took from this location, better compositions perhaps.

Of note, the sort of images I have been getting criticism about - boring, flat, dull, are these (linked so I don't wreck or oversize this post)
Hidden Waterfall I agree the greens are too dark, I think I could do better with that one. Though I have had it printed (18x12") and framed, and it looks pretty good.
Liffey falls 1
Liffey falls 2
Base of Liffey falls
All flat, dull, boring, etc... according to some. Again, printed & framed & hanging in a gallery for sale and getting great comments. But, could I do better if I pushed things further in the post processing to give it the "pop" that people seem to look for these days, or should I stick to trying to represent how a scene appeared to me when it was taken?

Hi Adam,

You've raised an excellent couple of questions here.

But rather than address your images, I think I'll live a little dangerously, and look at the questions themselves, and see where that takes the train, if I may.

tasadam wrote:All flat, dull, boring, etc... according to some.

Who are these "some"? And what is their importance to you, and to what you shoot?

Again, printed & framed & hanging in a gallery for sale and getting great comments. But, could I do better if I pushed things further in the post processing to give it the "pop" that people seem to look for these days, or should I stick to trying to represent how a scene appeared to me when it was taken?

Here is what I think is the real crux of your question. And there's quite some conflict here in what you're trying to achieve.

You say that these images are hanging in a gallery and getting great comments. Are they also selling, or are they only attracting great comments?

I suspect that the problem you are trying to address is not so much the issue of what others might be thinking or saying, but rather the one of where do you draw the line artistically in terms of preparing thee images for sale.

And I think that the answer for that depends upon what you wish to achieve as your outcome from the images in question. Do you want to sell the images, as a "commercial" and "popular" (populist?) ventue? Or do you wish to sell them as an artist, relying upon artistic merit and the artitistic taste of the public.

(No, I am being serious!)

If you wish to tread the latter path, then by all means, prepare the images exactly how you see them as being"right", whatever that concept might mean to you. That is a valid and proper and desirable goal.

Sadly, Joe Public might know what he likes, but often knows very little about art and/or quality, and thus we see items that are of crap quality being popular amongst the masses, and many people are able to get rich due to the absence of discernment upon the part of members of the public.

Were Joe Public able to demonstrate elements of good taste, we would need to deal with the likes Webber, Andrew Lloyd; or G, Kenny; or Girls, Spice; or .....

So, I think what you need to do is identify what outcomes (and target market) you wish to address and then, with that as your goal, you can set about processing your images to satisfy your goals.

And for the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with either end of that outcome spectrum: both have equal validity, but demand very different constraints upon how you might wish to market yourself, which in turn might bring about further conflicts for yourself.

Great points Gary. I guess it all stems from what I was discussing in this forum post, and the subsequent replies.
I had been happy enough with the results I have been achieving, I see my biggest problem in image selection, having so many... There's plenty of landscape photographers out there, a couple that take images not like what I am trying to achieve can be seen here and here.
I guess I got a bit frustrated at seeing the colour vomit (such as here and here (nothing against Garth, top bloke))selling like hotcakes and the natural images being overlooked. (what you were saying about artistic taste of the public).
Then, when the uninvited reply came in that forum post linked above

Looking at your gallery, I feel your images need a lot of improvement. You capture the right things, your composition skills are great, but that leaves you with simply just photographs. I look at them and I feel nothing else except the fact that they could be so much more. A professional photographer looking at your photos will immediately tell you’re just a hobbyist, since you have unfinished work. They are the kind of images you impress your family with and other beginning photographers, but don’t expect much else. Not as long as you refuse to accept the need for further processing. Sorry, I am being a bit blunt here, but it’s the truth.

it got me thinking. Not that I care for much of the work of the author... His work is such that I don't care for much of what he says. Critique from others sends the message that perhaps some of my images do need a revisit.

So I came to my most trusted source for further advice, this site.

So Gary in answering the first question, these "some" are not the people that are going to buy my images, so their opinion should have no bearing. But they have offered their thoughts, so it's got me thinking.

Where I stand now, I am happy enough with my post processing skills and the results achieved in many images I prepare, if I am to represent an image as it appeared to me. Of the four examples in my OP, not the images what I would ordinarily have recreated. The results in #4 are close to the mark, the rest are reworked to a different standard to what I had been doing prior to this seed being planted in my head that I might need to PP my images further to give them some different definition or meaning.

Back to the drawing board I guess, back to image selection, what images would look good with minimal tweaking, or even with a lot of tweaking but so long as the result is natural. And maybe take some time to learn more about PP techniques. I certainly haven't been given any great enthusiasm to change my style to give things an unnatural pop or zing. Outcomes? Commercial and popular, or artistic merit? I'm thinking the latter, letting the natural beauty in images I capture to be the feature of the image, not the artificial blue of a sky or red of a sunset that might look good to Joe Public. Sales may come in time, at least for now I have a lovely gallery to display my work in, a local vineyard cellar door. Just continue to do what I have been and hopefully build a name for myself.

For what it's worth, I quite like the non HDR version of the rays of light you have posted as well. Like the first I think it might benefit from a trip top down to the dark line in the cloud and a touch from the bottom, but it has great impact, even if the land is all black. It really brings attention to those rays and makes them the subject, the landscape is there for scale.

It'a s unique, artful and beautiful representation of the scene.

Oh, and I love the term 'colour vomit' and will be appropriating it for my own use!

Love the non-HDR sunrays. I reckon this one would be good even in BW.

gstark wrote:So, I think what you need to do is identify what outcomes (and target market) you wish to address and then, with that as your goal, you can set about processing your images to satisfy your goals.

I think this is sound advice! Recently one photographer here changed from Nikon to Canon for this very issue.

Speaking of landscapes, what do you think of the Ansel adams collection? Apparently he did some PP on his images.

Tasadam,

Dont think! Accept the critique and move on. Every artist in every medium plays the game in their own way and own interpretation. They have shown their hand for whatever reason. Take on board these comments and learn.

From the day you are born till the day you die you will never stop learning!

Cheers
Jethro

Can I add that I dislike the "colour vomit" style of HDR but that is a personal opinion. As for that other author....their work reminds me a bit of the oversaturated, over processed junk that a certain identity that we all love to hate, and love to laugh with has......

As for the images you have posted, the 2nd and 3rd images are pretty good as they are. I would not really change much in them, if they are what you think of as complete works then they are, dont let someone bully you into reproducing their style. Mind you, I agree with Suren with the non HDR version of #3 being very good. I like it as it is.

Hi Adam,

tasadam wrote:Great points Gary. I guess it all stems from what I was discussing in this forum post, and the subsequent replies.

Ok, there's one post in that thread, where the observation that a photo is art (or something like that) is made. Yes, and no.

We live in a wonderful world today: I can drive around Sydney, enjoying the live broadcasts from my favourite radio station, which happens to be in Long Beach, California.

Through computers and modern technology, we now all have the capabilities to enjoy the benefits of having a sophisticated recording studio in our bedroom,as well as a very sophisticated desktop digital darkroom, also in our bedroom, to help us to achieve stunning images from our DSLRs.

As a musician and broadcaster, I can assure you that just because we have the capabilities to do this recording does not mean that we must.

Similarly, because a post processing technique exists, I don't believe that there is any suggestion that we must, always, use that technique. Just as we have a variety of lenses - to help us adjust how we can view a scene - at our disposal, so too there are a variety of post processing techniques from which we can choose.

Most of the images that you've highlighted remind me of the street vendors that you may see around Venice Beach in California. There used to be (and perhaps still is) a guy who uses cans of spray paint and assorted circular objects to produce his "fine art" images of planets in outer space. He seems to do a fine trade, and yes, to an extent, it's probably art.

In the eyes of some beholders.

Are the example images that you've referred to better than yours? They're certainly different from yours, and that's ok. What does "better" mean? I really have no idea, but I don't have much affection towards those images, but that's just my opinion, my taste. Which I contend is no better, nor any worse, than that of other members here.

Some people think Seinfeld is funny. Others might love Lucy. I don't. I do (the early stuff). And what I might consider to be art is simply that: what I consider to be art. Your opinion may differ, and that is great: I celebrate the fact that we have different tastes, different boundaries, different points of view.

There is nothing at all wrong with that. As Paul Simon put it, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.

So, I'm not too concerned if a photo is described as art, or not.

Does it really matter?


You do raise the point about post processing - how much is acceptable before it's no longer a photo?

There's an issue underlying this question that I think many people overlook. In many instances, that will be because they've never worked in a wet darkroom, and so perhaps they don't really understand much of what they're doing.

First of all, I do not think there's anything that I've seen done in a digital darkroom that cannot be done in a traditional wet darkroom. That sounds like a big ask, but I've done some interesting manipulations in my time, and I'm sure that anyone here with a good level of wet skills will back me up. Yes, a digital darkroom makes the process way easier and more convenient, but while the methodologies differ, the outcomes can be the same.

And then there's HDR. This wonderful new technique.

The hammer in so many people's toolkit that makes every image a veritable nail.

This wonderful new technique that's actually been around for something like a hundred years!

The real issue as I see it is that the digital photography, with the brilliant affordable cameras that we now have access to, along with wonderful tools like Photomatix, just means that we now have recording studios and digital darkrooms to be wary of.

I had been happy enough with the results I have been achieving, I see my biggest problem in image selection, having so many...

Kind of like having a tax problem, really: if you have a tax problem, then you have to suffer the consequences of earning a good income.

I guess I got a bit frustrated at seeing the colour vomit

Don't be frustrated, and don't bring yourself to their level. They like what they do, as do others. That is fine, but why engage? Be better than that! You're a member here! :

Then, when the uninvited reply came in that forum post linked above

Looking at your gallery, I feel your images need a lot of improvement. You capture the right things, your composition skills are great, but that leaves you with simply just photographs. I look at them and I feel nothing else except the fact that they could be so much more. A professional photographer looking at your photos will immediately tell you’re just a hobbyist, since you have unfinished work. They are the kind of images you impress your family with and other beginning photographers, but don’t expect much else. Not as long as you refuse to accept the need for further processing. Sorry, I am being a bit blunt here, but it’s the truth.

it got me thinking.

Thinking is good, but keep it in context. First of all, this person is merely expressing an opinion. His opinion. That's fine, but it's an opinion, as as such, it's neither right nor wrong: it's an opinion!

But he makes some outlandish statements: how does he know what a professional photographer might say? He might say that, but others? What is the basis for this statement of his?

And no, what he says is not the truth. It's his opinion, which by definition, cannot be the truth.

Critique from others sends the message that perhaps some of my images do need a revisit.

And while legitimate critique is welcome and should be valued, you always need to be mindful of what the outcome is that you wish to achieve. If you're shooting commercially, then the desired outcome should be the satisfaction of your client's needs. If you're shooting for your own pleasure, then all critiques are gratefully received, but it's your choice to accept them or not, based upon what you feel you want the image to be.

So Gary in answering the first question, these "some" are not the people that are going to buy my images, so their opinion should have no bearing. But they have offered their thoughts, so it's got me thinking.

Which is great.

Never stop doing that, but remember that it's your heart that's the really important speaker in this discussion.

Adam,

As others have said, if your primary goal is to make money out of selling photos then do whatever you need to do to sell them. Doesn't have to concern you as an 'artist'.

Just face facts that everyone on the planet is trying to sell something to make money to feed themselves, and their families and to get a root. That's what we are here for. No point missing out on all that for artistic pride.

If you don't like colour vomit then don't put it up at your place or in your private gallery, but if the type of person who buys photography wants colour vomit then you need to give them colour vomit to get some of thier cash.

You can always put the unaltered images up in your place or your own private gallery.


IMO HDR is way overused. People who rely on HDR need to shoot at better times of the day. A good photo is about contrast, not maximum dynamic range.