Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2015, 06:05 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Miguel Quote
Though my style of shooting, and processing is different, I'm impressed with the consistency of the artist's vision and his prolific output. He's done more with that set of shots than most shooters have achieved in decades if not a lifetime. I think what we are challenged by is seeing his oeuvre all at once where it can be overwhelming and somewhat repetitive. If these were laid out like bread crumbs over months or years than I think the impression would be greater. So, good for him.

M
good point

02-11-2015, 11:04 PM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
pixie's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Visitacion Valley, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 826
Original Poster
Thank you all for sharing your opinions. It's been very educating, and I am very happy to be on Pentaxforums for that. I go to Lake Tahoe a lot to ski and I am familiar with these vistas. I was particularly impressed with the photographer's winter work. The lit Bonsai Rock ones must have had a lot of on-site work done with lighting, I think. Unless that can be done in PP in which I am a total hit & miss, self taught/youtube Aperture amateur user. I guess Photoshop is a must these days. I came across Mr. Neil Lockhart's Tahoe images by surfing the net without even looking at the rest of his work or mentioning his name, for which I apologize. Here is a link to his full site Neil Lockhart Photography Thank you all again.
02-12-2015, 12:44 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
It depend 100% of what you are after, what are your tastes.

I would say it is a bit overdone (= does not look realistic) but I mean depend of what are your objective.

What I'd like as a photographer is to control what I get and so I can have a style that fit the mood, the scene, what I want to express or what the client ask for.

This is sure to have some place in a portfolio.
02-13-2015, 02:15 AM - 1 Like   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxpixie Quote
What are your thoughts
Too much photographer and not enough Tahoe


Last edited by wildman; 02-13-2015 at 04:08 AM.
02-13-2015, 05:59 AM   #35
Veteran Member
NicoleC's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 448
Stylistically, this photographer is about 180 degrees from where my aesthetic sense is. That said, what s/he is doing is very trendy -- turning landscapes into surrealistic digital scenes -- and s/he is quite good at it.


That said, in my neck of the woods I don't see that translate into print sales. "Oohs" and "wows" and social media sharing, yes. Exchange of money? No.
02-13-2015, 06:44 AM   #36
Veteran Member
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,953
Speaking as somebody who likes to crank his vibrancy and saturation, shoot HDRs, and shoot HDRs with cranked vibrancy and saturation, those are a bit overdone. If I look at it and go "No, too much" it's proooobably too much.

EDIT: Not saying they're bad, different strokes and all (the photos are done well as far as subject, framing, etc, the colors just seem a bit overwhelming - they distract from the details for lack of a better term). If you want to compare, here are my 'best' according to flickr, you'll see where I went the HDR uberprocessing route on a couple of them. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jroberts72/sets/72157622201278470/

Last edited by Sagitta; 02-13-2015 at 07:41 AM.
02-13-2015, 07:36 AM   #37
Senior Member
halfspin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 255
QuoteOriginally posted by Sagitta Quote
Speaking as somebody who likes to crank his vibrancy and saturation, shoot HDRs, and shoot HDRs with cranked vibrancy and saturation, those are a bit overdone. If I look at it and go "No, too much" it's proooobably too much.

EDIT: Not saying they're bad, different strokes and all (the photos are done well as far as subject, framing, etc, the colors just seem a bit overwhelming - they distracts from the details for lack of a better term). If you want to compare, here are my 'best' according to flickr, you'll see where I went the HDR uberprocessing route on a couple of them. https://www.flickr.com/photos/jroberts72/sets/72157622201278470/
Beautiful shots!
02-13-2015, 07:56 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,249
There's a guy who has a gallery near where I live, he gives courses in his studio, and that's his look. And he sells a heck of a lot more than I do. So my comment, would be, if you think this kind of work is overdone, be prepared to starve for your art.

And you also have to realize, he's done a remarkable amount of work, to get images that look good with this degree of processing. Just walk out your door and try and take images that look this good super processed. You can't do it. People talk about these "over-processors" as if they have no talent. OK< those of you who say these are over-processed, show me that you can re-create this work, on your own level, and that you then chose to scale it back. People try and make it sound like they've made a choice. Many just don't have the technical ability to produce this type of work. It's not a choice, they just can't do it. It's a failing. You have to know what to shoot, to get images that look good this processed. It absolutely pains me to hear people who haven't learned how to take images that look this good super-processed, talking about people who have.

What I say in this kind of situation is

'The colours of the original scene were so much beyond what you can capture in a picture, I'm just trying to create in a small way what I took the picture of." And I've had people call work "over processed" that were pretty much right off the camera. My advice is, you're the artist, go with what you think works. And I'd argue, given the range of saturation, contrast, etc. you find out in the real world, no matter what you do, nature is higher contrast, more saturated, and richer. No matter what you do, you can only imitate the effect you saw, it will never be good enough, no matter what you do. The last people you want to be taking advice from would be those who go for the "technical interpretation" where technical means "flat, boring and un-inspiring." There are, it would seem, people who worship that as "real."

Well, it's not real, it's an interpretation influenced by their lack of ability to be impressed by what they see. People who are impressed by the gradations of saturation etc. they see before them will try and build that "lack of impressiveness" into their images. If you took it because it was spectacular and your image doesn't convey that "spectacularness", regardless of how you do it, you've failed.

At least, that's one way of looking at it.


Last edited by normhead; 02-13-2015 at 08:04 AM.
02-13-2015, 08:11 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,953
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What I say in this kind of situation is

'The colours of the original scene were so much beyond what you can capture in a picture, I'm just trying to create in a small way what I took the picture of." And I've had people call work "over processed" that were pretty much right off the camera. My advice is, you're the artist, go with what you think works. And I'd argue, given the range of saturation, contrast, etc. you find out in the real world, no matter what you do, nature is higher contrast, more saturated, and richer. No matter what you do, you can only imitate the effect you saw, it will never be good enough, no matter what you do.


This, so much this.

I tend to do a lot of night shooting (when Maine weather allows me to not freeze solid in the process), and sometimes its just a matter of going on instinct when you see a shot. Other times you'll see something and say to yourself "No way I'll be able to get this right back home."

I'm personally not into the extreme saturation thing myself, but that's just me. I do tend to abuse the hell out of the vibrance slider though.

As an example of what normhead means, I shot this with a hacked $100 Canon PowerShot back in the day. I've had people accuse me of working the colors, when in reality the shot doesn't come close to what I was lucky enough to be there for that morning. The entire eastern sky went orange for me for a bit before the sun came up, and I was just lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time to catch it.



This shot was one where I was out trying to shoot meteors (no luck there) only to have the clouds roll in. My first instinct was to pack it in and head home, but I realized if I just rolled with it, I could maybe get a good shot (and I did).



I don't think a lot of people realize just how crazy colors can be from dusk to daybreak.

I'd absolutely love to go to Tahoe some day and shoot those locations. My own shots would most definitely be different, but the subject matter looks amazing.

Last edited by Sagitta; 02-13-2015 at 03:42 PM.
02-13-2015, 02:57 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,270
How timely a thread as just last night on a public community facebook page, i shared a sunset shot and a local amateur shooter jumped all over me in front of everyone to say how I employ software enhancements to cover up a lack of talent. The guy, whom i've never met, was likely jealous or insecure about his own very mediocre pictures, but stuck around to then take swings at other people (including some outstanding local photogs) who jumped in to defend the use of post processing tools in artistic modern photography.

So there you have it, not only are there many ways to use a camera, but there are likewise many was to perceive art.


this was the pic that got the guy all hot and bothered:

Palm Tract Last Light
02-13-2015, 03:28 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,742
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
The guy, whom i've never met, was likely jealous or insecure about his own very mediocre pictures
That's a sad bullying story that seems to happen commonly online in lots of contexts. Generally I believe that insecurity is at the heart of it. For people who can only badmouth another shooter or only provide non-constructive feedback about posted shots, it's jealousy and envy unleashed because they are alone.

Same as it ever was.

Nice shot BTW.

M
02-13-2015, 03:42 PM   #42
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
I think these things are neat but once you start blending multiple images with different exposures, you've entered the real of digital art and left photography.

Of course, the line is a bit thin because thanks to processing, we can do things that were totally impossible on film. We can lighten the foreground of an image in a way that is impossible with graduated ND filters. I do some of that too, but I try to limit it to simple contrast and exposure bumps. But to each artist his own.
02-13-2015, 03:48 PM   #43
Veteran Member
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,953
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
I think these things are neat but once you start blending multiple images with different exposures, you've entered the real of digital art and left photography.

Of course, the line is a bit thin because thanks to processing, we can do things that were totally impossible on film. We can lighten the foreground of an image in a way that is impossible with graduated ND filters. I do some of that too, but I try to limit it to simple contrast and exposure bumps. But to each artist his own.

Whats the difference between blending two (or three or four...) separately exposed shots to gain color depth and, say, shooting a digital camera from 15 years that had half the color depth of the cameras today?

People have blended differently exposed and processed shots since photography (or at least the use of negatives) began, and you certainly couldn't accuse them of not being photographers.

Heck, by that definition even a double exposure isn't photography any more either.
02-13-2015, 03:50 PM   #44
Veteran Member
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There's a guy who has a gallery near where I live, he gives courses in his studio, and that's his look. And he sells a heck of a lot more than I do. So my comment, would be, if you think this kind of work is overdone, be prepared to starve for your art.

And you also have to realize, he's done a remarkable amount of work, to get images that look good with this degree of processing. Just walk out your door and try and take images that look this good super processed. You can't do it. People talk about these "over-processors" as if they have no talent.
I don't think that's really it. I think it's more that the average man probably believes photos come out of the camera like this or very close to it. That means anyone who doesn't do this sort of wild processing will be deemed an inferior photographer--when really, it's the Photoshop skills that are inferior. It's also dangerous for the camera industry: people don't realize the amount of work that goes into digital photography and will be disappointed when their images look like this



when they expected this



Plus, there's a couple human nature factors in here:
1) People will still complain when someone spends more time and ends up with better results. (Most notably, you see this in school: "That kid is so smart!" when the reality is that kid spends his nights reading books instead of playing video games.)
2) Hobbyists and amateurs don't feel they can compete with someone who has time to spend hours to make such an image.
02-13-2015, 04:20 PM - 1 Like   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,576
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
I think these things are neat but once you start blending multiple images with different exposures, you've entered the real of digital art and left photography.

Of course, the line is a bit thin because thanks to processing, we can do things that were totally impossible on film. We can lighten the foreground of an image in a way that is impossible with graduated ND filters. I do some of that too, but I try to limit it to simple contrast and exposure bumps. But to each artist his own.
I sort of disagree. You can use multiple exposures to achieve the same result as with a single exposure that has been pushed a lot. The end result may be similar, although I find that at times the HDR image will have less noise than a single image that has been pushed.

This is an example:

Single Photo processed in Color Efex.



Three Exposures Processed in HDR Efex.



Three Exposures Processed in Photomatix.



I personally like the Photomatix result the best, but I'm sure with a little tweaking, you could get the images to look exactly the same. Processing time really wasn't different between the three images. All took about two minutes to process. In the end, I think there are many ways to skin a cat. With modern sensors, there is dynamic range to burn and as to whether you choose to exploit a single image or take multiple images, I don't think it makes a difference. I have more concerns when folks push the saturation/clarity sliders up a little too much.

Oh well, each to his own...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature What kind of bees are these? charliezap Post Your Photos! 5 07-22-2014 05:45 PM
Missing WOW factor with my K30 kit jaikumarr18 Pentax K-30 & K-50 45 06-21-2014 10:23 PM
k-3 images lacking wow factor mgomez Pentax K-3 67 01-19-2014 01:18 PM
Any idea of what lenses these are? BigJPR Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 47 03-05-2013 11:14 AM
wow, what are these people smoking Gooshin General Talk 17 11-13-2009 11:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top