Wow factor, are some of these overdone?

Sagitta · 02-13-2015, 04:26 PM - **1 Like**

Post processing (even hours of it) is by far the minor part of taking a good shot. If you don't have quality going in, you will not (no matter how good you are at Photoshop) have a good product going out.

To use an old and crude expression, "You can't polish a turd."

If you aren't taking a quality shot to start with (even if its drab and dreary at first glance) you won't have a quality shot going out, you'll just have a crappy photo with great post work done to it.

NicoleC · 02-13-2015, 07:52 PM - **1 Like**

Isn't declaring someone's Photoshop skills to be "inferior" because they DON'T process shots in this surrealistic way just as dismissive? It's like complaining Picasso couldn't paint because he didn't look like Monet.

Nicolas06 · 02-14-2015, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by normhead

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.

Aggree !

Nicolas06 · 02-14-2015, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by NicoleC

Isn't declaring someone's Photoshop skills to be "inferior" because they DON'T process shots in this surrealistic way just as dismissive? It's like complaining Picasso couldn't paint because he didn't look like Monet.

It is much more people that don't do very vibrant color shots that criticize theses kind of shoots here than the contrary. Most of this thread is just this.

I think then we could accept that in the thread it does a bit on the other side too, don't you think?

Obviously, both very vibrant, saturated shoot or muted shoot can be very boring or interresting. As can be B&W, any kind of processing (or no processing), any kind of subject and so own.

It doesn't come to this, and I think we all know that. It is not even the question if you are good at post processing or not. Nobody really care. Except maybe yourself if you don't know it well yourself and you think you need to somewhat compensate by being picky about it.

The question is more can you take photo and enjoy the process and hopefully the results if you do it for yourself ? And if you do for others, can you make a decent living out of it, ensuring your clients are satisfyed?

There no absolute better or worse here... And I think a fully accomplished photographer is better to know how to do everything so he can choose what best match his current mood, his client mood, what he want or he is asked to express.

cxdoo · 02-14-2015, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

It doesn't come to this, and I think we all know that. It is not even the question if you are good at post processing or not.

Correct.

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The question is more can you take photo and enjoy the process and hopefully the results if you do it for yourself ? And if you do for others, can you make a decent living out of it, ensuring your clients are satisfyed?

Wrong. The question is "What are your thoughts on the PP on these?".

A lot of stuff gets implied from one's answer to above question; which (answer) is just a matter of taste.

mikeSF · 02-14-2015, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by MadMathMind

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.

Though I respect that you are sharing you opinion, I find this statement to be flawed.

I would consider one of the biggest departures from what the eye sees to be...that's right, a black and white image. Except for totally color blind people, nobody in the world sees the world without color and black & white has been in use for 180+ years. Even today, when color photography has been available for decades, people (including me) still shoot mono images. Why? Is is nostalgia? Is it "art"? Whatever it is, it isn't what the eye saw, or even what the camera saw. Consider when a modern photographer "overdoses" on color...all those who have been robbing us of a complete or "realistic" image all these years.

Nicolas06 · 02-14-2015, 09:11 AM - **1 Like**

A photo with vibrant colors is a bit like food with fat. It may taste far better but you have to be guilty to like it or eat it, even if your are yourselve perfectly slim.

And if your are making cakes, you should be even more guilty to exploit this bad tendancy of mankind and convert to selling and backing raw spinash instead, the only kind of real food one should ever eat.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-14-2015 at 09:36 AM.

**Rondec** · 02-14-2015, 03:44 PM

A lot depends on what the day gives you with regard to light.

There are plenty of mornings that I go out and this is the sort of light I encounter:

And then other mornings, it is more like this:

Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places.

NicoleC · 02-14-2015, 04:03 PM

I would call it "mixed media" instead of digital art -- after all, the photographic portion is at least as important as the digital manipulation. Someone drawing or painting a scene would be digital art, IMO -- a whole different set of skills entirely.

mikeSF · 02-14-2015, 05:38 PM

Oh, I think of digital art as this:

one of my shooting buddies designed this one, btw. He knocked it out of the park too.

mikeSF · 02-15-2015, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by dcshooter

Since he's been very active in this thread, I feel I must preface this by letting everyone know I am saying this completely unprompted:

If you want to see what in my opinion is a much much better example of a photographer employing a highly processed, vibrant style, look at MikeSF's stuff. My own current style is much more reserved in palette than his, but I am constantly impressed by his images, and I'd daresay he's probably the best landscape photographer on this site. Every photo of his is a 10.

wow, that is so nice of you to say. thanks!
In the past 2 years, I have definitely begun to incorporate a slightly more aggressive palette as well as exposure blending, whether it be by luminosity masking, manual blending, or HDR. Until our cameras are able to approximate the enormous range of light that our eyes & brain can perceive, a single exposure (in contrasty light conditions) will always fall a little short without some dynamic range compression. This is analogous to audio recordings that employ dynamic compression to reduce the dynamic range to meet the limitations of the recording medium. Light and sound processing are similar in many ways.

Nicolas06 · 02-15-2015, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

A lot depends on what the day gives you with regard to light.

There are plenty of mornings that I go out and this is the sort of light I encounter:

And then other mornings, it is more like this:

Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places.

The lighting of the second is very impressive ! Great shoot!

Nicolas06 · 02-15-2015, 02:55 AM

I think that there is what we are accustomed to and what we are not.

We don't say a backlit scene with black silhouettes is unrealistic.
But when I look at it with my bare eyes I typically get much more colors and details than just black silhouettes. A good photographer will use it for artistic purpose but this is not at all realistic.

We don't say a B&W shoot or worse a sepia shoot is unrealistic
But I see photos in full colors and no color at all is far less realistic to me than over saturated colors.

We don't say a studio shoot with lot of artifical light and heavy post processing to smooth the skin is artificial.
When I look at the real person she don't stand all the time in perfect light and don't have a friend holding a reflector and adding some specular hightlight in her hair nor does I constantly look through binocular to see the features disminushed.

We don't think that night movie scenes with lot of light so we can see what happen are unrealistic...
Even through in the country, in a wood, a cave or something without added lighting I typically don't see anything in the night. Like I don't see anything in a bedroom at 3am if light is not on.

We don't think a photograph with a wide apperture is unrealistic
Even through I never see the world like that. There always much more deph of field when I look at some object than when a photographer take it with a wide apperture to isolate the subject.

Photographers don't hesitate one bit to hide/change the reality as we see it with all the tools they have at their disposal.

But if somebody use "eyes candy" colors then suddenly it is no more photography...
How strange !

I mean, everybody what so impressed by this shoot I taken (see just after) They said that it really show what the DA35 f/2.4 can do and so on. Do you really think the shoot has anything to do with the lense quality and that 18-55 couldn't have shoot it? Do you think it is at all realistic? I completely changed the tone curve, decreased saturation to -55 added +100% of contrast +33 of micro contrast, I used a film rendering "Fuji Velvia" and DxO SmartLighting was set to "50" (a bit useless I admit). There no way the sky was almost grey in reality, there no way the water was looking like that in reality and the tone to be mostly sepia. The picture you see was meant to be graphical, not at all realistic. It was heavily post processed but many liked it so it was ok to them.

Because many don't like the Lake Tahoe shoots doesn't mean this no longer a photo. That no less realistic than a studio portrait shoot with a 85mm f/1.4 or any B&W film shoot back in the day !

This is another shoot from the same place, a bit earlier, it look completely different:

wildman · 02-15-2015, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places.

And sometimes "drab" is just right.
I converted this to BW on a separate layer and then faded it back to the original color layer about 40 percent and it gave me what I wanted.

For me the first rule when it comes to human perception and how we perceive "Art" is that there are no rules.

Mennonite mother and her boy.....

kadajawi · 02-15-2015, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by mikeSF

wow, that is so nice of you to say. thanks!
In the past 2 years, I have definitely begun to incorporate a slightly more aggressive palette as well as exposure blending, whether it be by luminosity masking, manual blending, or HDR. Until our cameras are able to approximate the enormous range of light that our eyes & brain can perceive, a single exposure (in contrasty light conditions) will always fall a little short without some dynamic range compression. This is analogous to audio recordings that employ dynamic compression to reduce the dynamic range to meet the limitations of the recording medium. Light and sound processing are similar in many ways.

I agree with all but the audio recording part. CDs have a massive dynamic range, the only reason for compression is that they make it as loud as humanly possible... and then go much further. As if you saturate a photo so much that the colors are clipping, and details get lost. That is what they do to music all the time.

02-15-2015, 02:55 AM	#58
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	I think that there is what we are accustomed to and what we are not. We don't say a backlit scene with black silhouettes is unrealistic. But when I look at it with my bare eyes I typically get much more colors and details than just black silhouettes. A good photographer will use it for artistic purpose but this is not at all realistic. We don't say a B&W shoot or worse a sepia shoot is unrealistic But I see photos in full colors and no color at all is far less realistic to me than over saturated colors. We don't say a studio shoot with lot of artifical light and heavy post processing to smooth the skin is artificial. When I look at the real person she don't stand all the time in perfect light and don't have a friend holding a reflector and adding some specular hightlight in her hair nor does I constantly look through binocular to see the features disminushed. We don't think that night movie scenes with lot of light so we can see what happen are unrealistic... Even through in the country, in a wood, a cave or something without added lighting I typically don't see anything in the night. Like I don't see anything in a bedroom at 3am if light is not on. We don't think a photograph with a wide apperture is unrealistic Even through I never see the world like that. There always much more deph of field when I look at some object than when a photographer take it with a wide apperture to isolate the subject. Photographers don't hesitate one bit to hide/change the reality as we see it with all the tools they have at their disposal. But if somebody use "eyes candy" colors then suddenly it is no more photography... How strange ! I mean, everybody what so impressed by this shoot I taken (see just after) They said that it really show what the DA35 f/2.4 can do and so on. Do you really think the shoot has anything to do with the lense quality and that 18-55 couldn't have shoot it? Do you think it is at all realistic? I completely changed the tone curve, decreased saturation to -55 added +100% of contrast +33 of micro contrast, I used a film rendering "Fuji Velvia" and DxO SmartLighting was set to "50" (a bit useless I admit). There no way the sky was almost grey in reality, there no way the water was looking like that in reality and the tone to be mostly sepia. The picture you see was meant to be graphical, not at all realistic. It was heavily post processed but many liked it so it was ok to them. Because many don't like the Lake Tahoe shoots doesn't mean this no longer a photo. That no less realistic than a studio portrait shoot with a 85mm f/1.4 or any B&W film shoot back in the day ! This is another shoot from the same place, a bit earlier, it look completely different: Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-15-2015 at 03:09 AM.

02-15-2015, 04:23 AM	#59
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by Rondec Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places. And sometimes "drab" is just right. I converted this to BW on a separate layer and then faded it back to the original color layer about 40 percent and it gave me what I wanted. For me the first rule when it comes to human perception and how we perceive "Art" is that there are no rules. Mennonite mother and her boy..... Last edited by wildman; 03-02-2015 at 09:24 AM.

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 & K-3 II	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

02-13-2015, 04:26 PM - 1 Like	#46
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Post processing (even hours of it) is by far the minor part of taking a good shot. If you don't have quality going in, you will not (no matter how good you are at Photoshop) have a good product going out. To use an old and crude expression, "You can't polish a turd." If you aren't taking a quality shot to start with (even if its drab and dreary at first glance) you won't have a quality shot going out, you'll just have a crappy photo with great post work done to it.

02-13-2015, 07:52 PM - 1 Like	#47
NicoleC Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 448	Isn't declaring someone's Photoshop skills to be "inferior" because they DON'T process shots in this surrealistic way just as dismissive? It's like complaining Picasso couldn't paint because he didn't look like Monet.

02-14-2015, 06:12 AM	#48
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead 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. Aggree !

02-14-2015, 06:27 AM	#49
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by NicoleC Isn't declaring someone's Photoshop skills to be "inferior" because they DON'T process shots in this surrealistic way just as dismissive? It's like complaining Picasso couldn't paint because he didn't look like Monet. It is much more people that don't do very vibrant color shots that criticize theses kind of shoots here than the contrary. Most of this thread is just this. I think then we could accept that in the thread it does a bit on the other side too, don't you think? Obviously, both very vibrant, saturated shoot or muted shoot can be very boring or interresting. As can be B&W, any kind of processing (or no processing), any kind of subject and so own. It doesn't come to this, and I think we all know that. It is not even the question if you are good at post processing or not. Nobody really care. Except maybe yourself if you don't know it well yourself and you think you need to somewhat compensate by being picky about it. The question is more can you take photo and enjoy the process and hopefully the results if you do it for yourself ? And if you do for others, can you make a decent living out of it, ensuring your clients are satisfyed? There no absolute better or worse here... And I think a fully accomplished photographer is better to know how to do everything so he can choose what best match his current mood, his client mood, what he want or he is asked to express.

02-14-2015, 08:50 AM	#50
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by Nicolas06 It doesn't come to this, and I think we all know that. It is not even the question if you are good at post processing or not. Correct. Originally posted by Nicolas06 The question is more can you take photo and enjoy the process and hopefully the results if you do it for yourself ? And if you do for others, can you make a decent living out of it, ensuring your clients are satisfyed? Wrong. The question is "What are your thoughts on the PP on these?". A lot of stuff gets implied from one's answer to above question; which (answer) is just a matter of taste.

02-14-2015, 09:06 AM	#51
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by MadMathMind 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. Though I respect that you are sharing you opinion, I find this statement to be flawed. I would consider one of the biggest departures from what the eye sees to be...that's right, a black and white image. Except for totally color blind people, nobody in the world sees the world without color and black & white has been in use for 180+ years. Even today, when color photography has been available for decades, people (including me) still shoot mono images. Why? Is is nostalgia? Is it "art"? Whatever it is, it isn't what the eye saw, or even what the camera saw. Consider when a modern photographer "overdoses" on color...all those who have been robbing us of a complete or "realistic" image all these years.

02-14-2015, 09:11 AM - 1 Like	#52
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	A photo with vibrant colors is a bit like food with fat. It may taste far better but you have to be guilty to like it or eat it, even if your are yourselve perfectly slim. And if your are making cakes, you should be even more guilty to exploit this bad tendancy of mankind and convert to selling and backing raw spinash instead, the only kind of real food one should ever eat. Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-14-2015 at 09:36 AM.

02-14-2015, 03:44 PM	#53
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	A lot depends on what the day gives you with regard to light. There are plenty of mornings that I go out and this is the sort of light I encounter: And then other mornings, it is more like this: Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places.

02-14-2015, 04:03 PM	#54
NicoleC Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Madison, AL Posts: 448	I would call it "mixed media" instead of digital art -- after all, the photographic portion is at least as important as the digital manipulation. Someone drawing or painting a scene would be digital art, IMO -- a whole different set of skills entirely.

02-14-2015, 05:38 PM	#55
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Oh, I think of digital art as this: one of my shooting buddies designed this one, btw. He knocked it out of the park too.

02-15-2015, 12:16 AM	#56
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Originally posted by dcshooter Since he's been very active in this thread, I feel I must preface this by letting everyone know I am saying this completely unprompted: If you want to see what in my opinion is a much much better example of a photographer employing a highly processed, vibrant style, look at MikeSF's stuff. My own current style is much more reserved in palette than his, but I am constantly impressed by his images, and I'd daresay he's probably the best landscape photographer on this site. Every photo of his is a 10. wow, that is so nice of you to say. thanks! In the past 2 years, I have definitely begun to incorporate a slightly more aggressive palette as well as exposure blending, whether it be by luminosity masking, manual blending, or HDR. Until our cameras are able to approximate the enormous range of light that our eyes & brain can perceive, a single exposure (in contrasty light conditions) will always fall a little short without some dynamic range compression. This is analogous to audio recordings that employ dynamic compression to reduce the dynamic range to meet the limitations of the recording medium. Light and sound processing are similar in many ways.

02-15-2015, 02:19 AM	#57
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Rondec A lot depends on what the day gives you with regard to light. There are plenty of mornings that I go out and this is the sort of light I encounter: And then other mornings, it is more like this: Bumping saturation or whatever you do doesn't change the light that you deal with, nor does multiple exposures. Winter in Indiana is just pretty drab compared to some other places. The lighting of the second is very impressive ! Great shoot!

02-15-2015, 07:10 AM	#60
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by mikeSF wow, that is so nice of you to say. thanks! In the past 2 years, I have definitely begun to incorporate a slightly more aggressive palette as well as exposure blending, whether it be by luminosity masking, manual blending, or HDR. Until our cameras are able to approximate the enormous range of light that our eyes & brain can perceive, a single exposure (in contrasty light conditions) will always fall a little short without some dynamic range compression. This is analogous to audio recordings that employ dynamic compression to reduce the dynamic range to meet the limitations of the recording medium. Light and sound processing are similar in many ways. I agree with all but the audio recording part. CDs have a massive dynamic range, the only reason for compression is that they make it as loud as humanly possible... and then go much further. As if you saturate a photo so much that the colors are clipping, and details get lost. That is what they do to music all the time.