Originally posted by atupdate In regards to my image, it is definitely post processing related.
I think Dan was referring to mine (the second and third photos in post #1224). As for your leaf photo, it's beautifully done. It needed plenty of contrast and microcontrast to make the most of the striking composition.
Originally posted by dlh I'm curious about something regarding these two pictures. It appeared to me that there was an unnatural degree of contrast in them, to the point of being somewhat harsh. I'm wondering whether that was due to a setting in the camera, post-processing, or what? Or am I wrong about that?
It was entirely due to post-processing.The lighting was rather flat when I took these two. Here they are uncorrected.
I lifted the exposure, adjusted the tone curve and increased the microcontrast and clarity to bring out the details. (There are details everywhere - for example the coral fern is beautiful but you hardly see it in the uncorrected image.) Whether I overdid it is a matter of taste. Yes the final versions are a bit harsh, if you like, but I was trying to give a feel for what this sort of dry schlerophyll bush in Australia is like - full of sharp-edged sedges, rough bark, straggly trees, prickly shrubs, usually accentuated by harsh light. All that is part of the special beauty, as I see it. When you are there, the visual richness (and the smells and the sounds) is overwhelming. When Europeans first painted these places they softened them (often in a Turner or Constable style) and failed to capture any of this. That only really changed in the 1890s with the Heidelberg school of painters.
With photography we have the opportunity to portray things as we see them. The diversity of visions is like any other art form, IMO.