i think i will be opening a new group for those of us who are non-purists and love a little play in Photoshop to get the results that nature will or cannot provide when we want here is a sample below love it or hate it let me know your thoughts
top image is the 3 shot bracket image with minor adjustments in raw
bottom image is fake as hell and 90% photoshop
you be the judge
The color on the 2nd one is good, but it takes too much away from the clarity of the scene in the first one. cool pictures and I really like the vision in the shopped image
thanks Dillon just tooling around with adding light that is non existent but yes clarity and crispness take a hit
As far as instagram goes the 2nd one will kill
Fly like the wind Joe! Open this group. I would LOVE it. What a great learning experience.
Let me know if there is anything I can do. I would post a note in Minimal, Abstract and Beyond to drum up some peeps.
I will say that, as a moderator, one interesting (and maybe a little disappointing) thing is how many people post and run - not leaving feedback for others or even coming back to acknowledge the feedback that they received. I am invested in my group and want to do whatever I can to make it a positive experience. In a group with the theme you are proposing, I think that participation would be even more important because there will hopefully be a lot of Q&A about how effects were accomplished. Just a thought that came to mind and to prepare you. I think this is a GREAT idea!
As for these lovely images - Love them both for different reasons. Wouldn't change a things on either of them. (Now that's irony!)
I would be interesting in knowing how you got that level of golden glow in the center back BTW.
Pretty easy grab the golden color set brush to soft light at intervals of 10%to 50% build up from the color palette from near the top of that color to white now that I’m trying to text this it sounds confusing as hell lol ..... thanks for the positive thoughts and feedback ;)
Bummer - I have no such brush and have not been able to duplicate with what I do have. I'll keep playing. Thanks!
What program do you have
Polarr. I use a chrome book. I got a pro version lifetime on Polarr for being one of the first to register. I like it but it is really basic. I have been thinking about making the move to something more advanced but (here is the view into my convoluted mind) having a very basic editor makes me work harder with the camera and I like that. :)
PS is $10 a month and i will keep paying it because is that worth it look into please you mount regret it and there is a free trial
Hey Ruth, unfortunately this seems to be typical of groups. I used to moderate a group on a different site and there are those that invest themselves and gain the benefit, and others that seem reluctant to spend time.
I am unsure whether some don't feel qualified to add comments (you know my attitude, we all have a set of eyes and an opinion), or whether folks feel their time is best spent elsewhere but I ended the group due to this struggle.
It could also be that folks are afraid of giving and receiving sincere feedback of course, but it remains the best way to improve.
Joe, go for it - there are lots of photographers out there that would benefit from seeing how images can be transformed by simple processing.
thanks Alan feel free to stop by and check it out
Done!
Have you started it?
I hear you Alan!
I think it is a great idea Joseph. I like what you tried with the photo and I think you selected the right colors in the second one, but also feel like the light added is not directional (I am pretty sure you know him, but Ryan Dyar is the god of adding light). I have one question, you say the top image is a 3 shot bracket image. Is it three different exposures? Thanks for sharing
Thanks Pablo and yes I shot 3 different exposures just to maintain all the details and your absolutely right I need to take more care in the direction of the light this was a practice/learning experiment in adding light
Hi Joseph.
have started with LR and in learning stage. PS is little far as on date. My thoughts about images...
Warmity of second image is preferred in comparison. softness of the water needs the sharpness of the surrounding in contrast. shadows within the frame feels patchy. i feel the exercise of 2nd image needs completion.
am encouraged to participate in your new grope. My carrot is to start learning goodies of PS. Though, often the mentor has good on his/her shoulder to keep it alive, active and well spread among the right minds. Ruth is one inspiring example.
Thanks.
Thanks Vijay your right it’s not super refined I will definitely have to take more care in future and not rush it but it is fun to play with the images in post
Why should you want to take pictures of the nature that is, as you write, a fake picture?
What is the fun in that. I love take photos of the nature because I love the nature and enjoy using it for hiking and relaxing.
If you are in advertising, I se the point of rebrushing the nature, because your goal is to sell something to a potential buyer. And to make fake statements and to adjust the reality is a norm.
I personally don't like adding elements and light in a nature photo. The challenge is to capture the wonders the nature can show us, like it is.
But, the "fake" picture will give you more likes for sure, and will be easier to sell.
So if the the challenge is to make beautiful photos, editing is one way to go. If you want the joy and experience of taking photos, then use time exploring the real nature.
By the way. I don't think you have done much editing in your example. You have adjusted the contrast, added som blure. The only thing that was not present in the scene is the golden light.
Your absolutely right nature is there to explore and behold but the creative in me likes to have a play and alter stuff plus I never delete the original so I can revisit the scene
Creativity is important to evolve as a photographer. Its up to each photographer to edit and manipulate their pictures as they like.
But when that is done, its important to inform the viewer about this manipulation so they can understand that the picture they are watching is not a real scenery and perhaps not even possible.
I have seen a lot of fake landscape pictures on instagram that are clearly heavy manipulated, and peoples har amazed of those marvels. And clearly many of the likers don't understand that many of those pictures are physically impossible.
absolutely right, at the end of the day a great image is a great image and yes it would be nice if images were catagorized like books having a fiction and non fiction section im just not sure how honest some people would be. i find this medium to be very versatile and multi demential more so than any other art form i hav experimented with and im looking forward to testing all its possibilities
Hi Kjell,
I disagree. (Which if fine as different opinions make for interesting conversation!). It is not up to an artist to explain their work. A painter doesn't have to explain their work nor does a sculptor or any other type of artist. Why would a photographer be obligated to disclose editing?
Frida Kahlo would not explain her surreal work - she just paints her vision and puts it out there. I mostly do abstracts and I don't feel I need to explain what they are or if I edited them. Others don't either, I think, because it is an abstract. Yet in reality, it is not different then a landscape. I found a subject to photograph that is real and just took it in abstract style. Similarly, a composit photographer isn't obligated to disclose that their work isn't real.
In the same vein, if someone who shoots a landscape and wants to alter the landscape into their own vision for their work, that is their art.
Just my opinion.
:)
i think i got something going here... both valid statements from both sides purist and artistic viewpoints. the funny thing is i don't think anyone is wrong as Ruth said everyone has their own views and opinions. loving the diversity!!!
Me too! It's all good!!
I absolutely agree. A photographer is an artist, and there is many different ways to express trough photography. Som like to take pictures with minimum of editing, and others do the opposite.
There is no right or wrong.
But the challenge is to know what is what. When is it manipulated and when is it a vision in an artist head that comes to expression.
An example:
Last year there was an norwegian photographer who took a great photo of a norwegian coast landscape, with stormy clouds and a fantastic lightening in the clouds. He presented the photo on the web, and got a lot of positive feedback even in public media. How fantastic to manage to take a picture like this at the right moment.
After some days another photographer had studied the picture, and claimed it was not one photo, but two photos put together. And this was correctly observed.
This information was cleverly not told by the photographer, because when i took the picture he did not get a nice photo on the location with one shoot. So he combined two pictures, from the same location and the same day, to get the picture he wanted but couldn't get.
Its ok to do this, I think, but you have to present it for what it is. Real life photos or edited photos to the artist likings.
Yes I agree kind of like how an artist displays how the piece of art was made like oil on board or mixed media on canvas it would be nice if the photography world followed suit
I would amend this by saying maybe if the viewer were given all the information like what filter were used time of day camera settings and everything else that goes into an image could or would it lose some of the mystic behind the image?
Would a painter tell about what type of oil paint he/she used, how long time it took, canvas type, type of brushes and so on. Think not. For the normal viewer this is total uninteresting, but perhaps not for other painters.
The advantage of a painting, is that people can normally se its a painting, and not mistake it for anything else. Its automatically a piece of art.
A photo is easy for many viewer to interpret as a picture of reality. Even if a photo is a limited viewpoint a fragment of time captured as light, people easy think this is real.
Som photos i easy to see is manipulated as a piece og art or advertising photos. Like the photos form John Wilhelm, and needs no explanation. But others photos that has been manipulated, is easy to interpret as real one shot photo.
This is a great discussion and yes your points are solid as steal I guess photography Should and could be held to a higher standard as to say this was an actual moment and be real about it or this is an emphasized moment in time where all the characters were there but was enhance or these are several separate moments put together to make an outstanding image
Interesting read. The only comment I will add is that with current technology, cameras still cannot mimic the dynamic range of the human eye.
The segment of folks who believe any manipulation interferes with capturing the scene as-is, fail to recognize that processing is usually required to convey the scene as it truly looked.
BTW, I realize that the blanket statement of to edit / not edit is not what is being discussed here, but wanted to add this thought to the dialogue.
Your absolutely right Robert no lens or camera can come close to the human eye and i think it will be a long time before we develop a technology to even come close I'm no doctor but im sure even color blind people have a wider dynamic range than what tech can produce....that said i edit the shit out of my shots because i like how it looks finished but there are those people who do very little and i can appreciate the simplicity as well
I think the simple answer to all of this is there's a difference between "landscape photography" and "fine art landscape photography". As I've come to understand, the latter is when the photographer creates an image from their head using the landscape. Mads Peter Iversen fits nicely into this category for a lot of his work, whereas Thomas Heaton is your more traditional landscape photographer.
It all comes down to the purpose of the image and the way it's handled, neither style is inherently better or worse.
Great way to put it Jordan ... somehow I think this conversation will continue lol
Hey Joe, I like the group idea, go for it.
As for these images, nice shot, looks good to start with (image #1)
As for image #2, I like your idea, I like how you brought the golden light down through the rocks, but the overall golden light addition just isn't quite there for me. If the light was there already and you just enhanced it one way or another, I think it would be much better (duh, an obvious statement). I agree with Pablo about light direction. Also, top center 'golden light' is too distracting for my eye, looks too much like a 'spot' rather than natural light. The waterfall itself looks disconnected, I see you did add some of that light to the rocks in the waterfall, but a bit more work needs to be done there.
You did call the second image 'fake as hell' so if it was something you are still working on, please pardon my critique, as I said I like your idea, and I like seeing your landscape photography.
Thanks JOE your critique is spot on and yes this was just goofing off I wanted something else for the group to discuss rather than just us placing our pretty pictures on and liking or disliking just a new kind of conversation
Maybe instead of calling yourself 'moderator' try going with something like "Overseer", a bit grander no?
Lmao not sure if I can change it but totally agree
I'm pretty new to the group. I joined a while back but then seemed unable to find the time to get back. There's a lot here on Fstoppers to learn from so hopefully, I'll be more consistent. One person asked why you'd want to edit or make a fake nature image. My opinion is that it is no different than a painter sitting there and painting an image. In the time it takes a person to paint a landscape the original image has changed a thousand times or more. As the sun moves across the sky, and the clouds come and go the artist is going to chose to highlight what they feel will best compliment and add to the overall image.
As you mentioned you were just playing around and quickly edited the two images. I'm just wondering what caused you to lose the clarity in the second image? I think my workflow would have been to add the light to just one of the pictures and then use photomerge? I guess I'm just getting an early start learning before you get your new group started! ;-)
I lost clarity because I was using destructive techniques which were faster to provide an example I will be going back and repeating the process in a proper manner so I retain the image quality ... the new group is open just named it before & after