[mrNewt]

wow, what a bunch of curmudgeons. do you see a pretty girl and think, "she's got a natural beauty to her if it weren't covered by makeup"? "her clothes a more suited for a movie set than this grocery store"?

what about pointillism, is that not really painting? or maybe impressionism or watercolor doesn't count.

this thread is a lot like another thread where a blogger wrote how he was disheartened by all the oversaturation/over sharpening

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/287764-will-rea...ml#post3141619

maybe we need to start a revolution, "Give me unsaturated photos, or give me death!" could be our war cry?

he, like many of us (and probably better than most of us) is marketing his work to the public in hopes of selling a few photos and making some money. this is what's selling, this style is what the buyers want. I actually have a couple rejection emails from higher end "fine art" galleries which state my images aren't "colorful or lively enough," ie they could use some more saturation.

You are looking at the images on a computer screen, a back lit LED/LCD electronic device probably no more than 3 feet away from your eyes. If the intended output is canvas (or metal which is my favorite) and the intended audience is viewing the image under gallery lights from 6-10 feet or further away, it's going to look VERY different. The first time I ever saw one of my photos in a gallery, it was a visual shock. At the risk of angering the "naturalist photographer" gods, I'm of the opinion, for gallery work, it's close to impossible to oversharpen and oversaturate.

This is how the "game" in 2015 is being played right now. (Have you ever tried to get Gallery space? Not the COLO kind where you pay for a wall, but the actual FREE kind where the Gallery Owner is invested in you work? You think a job interview is stressful? These are the kinds of photos that get THAT wall space, because these are the kinds of photos that sell.) I personally saw nothing wrong with the photos and a couple I would be proud to hang on my wall or exhibit in a gallery. A couple I have technical and/or artistic (compositional) issues with and a few elicit indifference because of subject matter. But as far as over saturation and oversharpening, I don't see anything wrong with what he's done.

Chill pill time ...
Someone asks for opinion on what others think about someone's work. And that's what they got - not everyone has to like it.

What are your thoughts on the PP on these?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Personally (deal with it)... I like some, I like the composition on pretty much all of them but on some the colors are "screaming" a little too much and don't mix very well either. But then again, whatever he likes. In the end he has to be happy with his work first.

Also, some of them give me the impression that he boosted the colors in order to try and save the image. Without boosting the colors, some of the images are rather plain and boring with poor exposure.

---

Last edited by mrNewt; 02-11-2015 at 09:36 AM.

[halfspin]

The real question is do the photos go over well with the lay public. Pretty (even saccharine) photos attract most non photographers because they are eye candy. The goal (at least mine) is to make photos that inspire everyone to want to save natural spaces/creatures so that some day they too can go and see them in person (even if they never will).

[tuco]

To each his own I suppose. But post processing your stills, like special effects in movies, if you notice it too much or it doesn't fit the scene then epic fail. And no other subject is abused more than what people do to poor mother nature. Soon it will be a common thing to use a neon color palette to paint your landscapes.

[halfspin]

I agree and it's not how I shoot but I still think it does please the masses and is much easier to make an otherwise blah composition pop. Landscape is incredibly difficult which is why I think most people tend to gravitate toward super saturated. My own stuff is pretty bland but I'm in Florida so the geology is extra annoying to shoot.

[IMG][/IMG]

[ChristianRock]

Loudness War comes to photography.

This is exactly it.

For mostly personal use, most people will be happy with a natural look. Yet if you want to sell your stuff, unfortunately at this point you pretty much *have* to over-do the PP and turn the image into something that really attracts attention. The fact that it calls for attention is, in itself, the reason why some people will buy it. They want people to look at the picture on their wall and go "wow, what is THAT?".

It's the loudness war - but instead of music, it's the colors and the sharpness that are really loud...

[Rondec]

I think these are a little over the top, particularly with regard to saturation. That isn't to say a lot of people don't like it, because they do.

There is a struggle with each photo to try to produce something that is eye catching, but not enter the surreal universe where it looks more like a video game than a real world scene. I think in particular, if you see a lot of halos or weird artifacts, then it is a problem, even if most non-photographers don't notice them.

A lot of this stuff is more digital art, rather than photography, in my opinion. It is fine for what it is, but I just think it is a different genre from photography.

[mikeSF]

... I just think it is a different genre from photography.

Don't forget there are many ways to use a camera. I can't imagine these images have deviated so much to you that they can no longer be considered as having originated from a camera?!

[Rondec]

Don't forget there are many ways to use a camera. I can't imagine these images have deviated so much to you that they can no longer be considered as having originated from a camera?!

True. Although there are paintings that look an awful lot like this, too.

[severalsnakes]

A lot of this stuff is more digital art, rather than photography, in my opinion

I think that's a great view of not only what is going on here, but in digital photography in general. At this point, it's so easy to create an image with a digital camera and then manipulate that image with software, the boundaries for what is or is not a "photograph" are really stretching. How unrealistic does an image from a camera have to be before it's not called a "photograph" anymore? Can that point ever be reached?

Not looking for answers. Just having some thoughts.

[johnyates]

Yet if you want to sell your stuff, unfortunately at this point you pretty much *have* to over-do the PP and turn the image into something that really attracts attention. The fact that it calls for attention is, in itself, the reason why some people will buy it. They want people to look at the picture on their wall and go "wow, what is THAT?".

This.

[6BQ5]

I live near Lake Tahoe and all of these sites are familiar to me. From a technical perspective, these images are a bit overcooked. For as beautiful as Lake Tahoe is I have to say that it doesn't look the way you see it in these pictures. When there's a major fire in Yosemite Park the smoke blows in and the smoke adds an unnatural reddish tint to everything - especially during sunsets. Otherwise, again, Lake Tahoe doesn't look like that.

However, I would agree with the statement that the images make. The breathtaking scenery gives me an emotional high every time I visit. It never gets old. Saturated colors and extreme contrasts is one way to communicate a high.

[kadajawi]

Mh. I like most of them so far, maybe a bit much, yes. The black and white is too much, I agree. It's a matter of taste though, and it doesn't have to do anything with reality. Do whatever pleases you (and if you want to sell, whatever attracts customers). It's a bit like Michael Bay movies... every single shot is designed for maximum emotional impact/drama, but consumed as a whole it's just too much and becomes bland/exhausting. What should stand out doesn't, because everything screams at you. However with single photographs that's a bit different, unless you look at a lot. Something you may hang in your home is allowed to scream.


I don't think the loudness war really applies here. With the loudness war you have massive clipping, distortion, loss of information. He doesn't go that far though. To the limit, perhaps, but not over it.


@halfspin: I like that shot. A lot. It's a bit... mh, depressing?

[Kerrowdown]

Wow factor, are some of these overdone?

Not quite my taste, but hey that's what arts all about.

[Dan]

The first one is overdone; the rest of them are FANTASTIC. Bravo!

"Too much is never enough."

Dan

[Miguel]

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