Monday, September 18, 2006
Stream
I frequent one of those mass photography forums where people click to vote for images that they like. I've uploaded very few and tend not to get too involved but I have noticed that a certain kind of landscape image is very popular. The above is an attempt to replicate some of the characteristics in post processing that many of these images have. Strange and other worldly colour casts, dodged out water, selective increases in contrast and lighting. The resulting image resembles the original in composition; I can't say much more than that. I'm curious about what we think. Does the treatement destroy the image or does it have its merits? My treatment is not as agressive as many others that I have seen (sky is not deep purple for one).
Permalink / posted by and copyright of JohnJo : 5:10 PM
Comments:
In a more satirical mood, I'm sure I would have constructed a forum style comment, but here are a few more serious things which spring to mind.
I suspect that if you spend long enough looking at photos with this level of contrast and saturation it begins to look normal. When I occasionally venture into colour work people often ask me if I have partially desaturated the image, but then I'm more attuned to monochrome and any colour looks loud.
People have a mental picture of a scene in which the colours were stronger than in reality (or the sun was brighter, or whatever). They then try to make the photo look like their mental picture. But they don't end up with a successful new vision, simply a corruption of reality.
People are still carried away with the ease of making colour adjustments.
Velveeta, er velvia, lives on in Photoshop!
My eye never quite believes pictures like this, although as a replication of the kind of pic that's popular on a lot of forums it's a pretty good one. Much more subtle than some.
Do you want the pastiche on the pastiche?
Probably the next most popular to sunsets (short of pouting models). It's the sort of photo (in general) that looks for where it can get all the ticks in the compositional box (objects in foreground, lead in to the picture, 1/3 and 2/3 etc.. Again, in general, they are then devoid of soul or any real understanding of the landscape that is being photographed.
You have made the mistake here of not quite sticking to the template! As Matt says, a bit more subtle. Enjoyable even, especially the careless little details such as the sticks in the water; THERE ARE ALWAYS STICKS IN THE WATER! In fact your sky is not really out of order at all.
As to your question: I just turn the page when I see the approach of a particularly brightly painted lorry of bright colour. I won't say that manipulation is always out of order (here I would criticise the rocks and foreground) but believe that it is wrong if it is following some perceived notion of what a good landscape photo should look like.
I thought of this image/debate today. We had gone for a walk from Carding Mill and when we eventually returned for the obligatory cuppa there were some landscape pictures for sale in the NT shop. The photographer had discovered the power of the saturation command!
As we walked the walk I took lots of images, with and without sun. I am sure none will demonstrate the colour saturation for sale, but I know how to achieve it!
This image did remind me of the work of Joe Cornish (there seems to be a problem with his website at the mo). I went to a lecture by Joe and it was an enjoyable evening, it temporarily made me lust after a view camera, and then common sense struck!
The inclusion of a foreground subject to liven up a landscape was described in a comment on one of my images as a 'trick'. I don't think it a trick, it is a bit of a compositional tool and adds interest. The landscape section beyond the foreground/midground is a bit bland and I recall that when I first looked at it I thought there was no lead in, the green was a barrier.
In case I read this later and decide I am incoherent, I apologise now, I've just drunk a glass of wine.
Landscape Photography By Numbers. It has all the elements, foreground interest, blurred water element, trees as image borders and a threatening sky. But all these elements are competing for my attention as there is no single strong focal point of interest. Perhaps a ruined structure on that distant hill would work...
Post a Comment
I suspect that if you spend long enough looking at photos with this level of contrast and saturation it begins to look normal. When I occasionally venture into colour work people often ask me if I have partially desaturated the image, but then I'm more attuned to monochrome and any colour looks loud.
People have a mental picture of a scene in which the colours were stronger than in reality (or the sun was brighter, or whatever). They then try to make the photo look like their mental picture. But they don't end up with a successful new vision, simply a corruption of reality.
People are still carried away with the ease of making colour adjustments.
My eye never quite believes pictures like this, although as a replication of the kind of pic that's popular on a lot of forums it's a pretty good one. Much more subtle than some.
Probably the next most popular to sunsets (short of pouting models). It's the sort of photo (in general) that looks for where it can get all the ticks in the compositional box (objects in foreground, lead in to the picture, 1/3 and 2/3 etc.. Again, in general, they are then devoid of soul or any real understanding of the landscape that is being photographed.
You have made the mistake here of not quite sticking to the template! As Matt says, a bit more subtle. Enjoyable even, especially the careless little details such as the sticks in the water; THERE ARE ALWAYS STICKS IN THE WATER! In fact your sky is not really out of order at all.
As to your question: I just turn the page when I see the approach of a particularly brightly painted lorry of bright colour. I won't say that manipulation is always out of order (here I would criticise the rocks and foreground) but believe that it is wrong if it is following some perceived notion of what a good landscape photo should look like.
As we walked the walk I took lots of images, with and without sun. I am sure none will demonstrate the colour saturation for sale, but I know how to achieve it!
This image did remind me of the work of Joe Cornish (there seems to be a problem with his website at the mo). I went to a lecture by Joe and it was an enjoyable evening, it temporarily made me lust after a view camera, and then common sense struck!
The inclusion of a foreground subject to liven up a landscape was described in a comment on one of my images as a 'trick'. I don't think it a trick, it is a bit of a compositional tool and adds interest. The landscape section beyond the foreground/midground is a bit bland and I recall that when I first looked at it I thought there was no lead in, the green was a barrier.
In case I read this later and decide I am incoherent, I apologise now, I've just drunk a glass of wine.