Jump to content

A Landscape


michaellinder

Recommended Posts

I don't think post processing, if that's what you have in mind, will improve it, due to what I see as pretty lackluster content. The composition feels awkward due to being center heavy and foreground heavy. The landscape itself doesn't hold much interest in terms of ground cover. The winding road is just there, not really accomplishing much within the picture itself. Focusing on it in some way to give it emphasis and character might have been one way to go here, but doing that in post will just feel self conscious, I imagine. The beach on the left seems to have the most potential as does the bay and mountains in the distance on the right.

 

Certainly the photo as is could be given more zip with some saturation and lighting adjustments as well as work on the contrast. If you look at that beach on the left, it's the only place that's getting energetic lighting, which makes the other ninety percent of the photo just seem dull by comparison. Without pushing it too much, the rest of the photo could be post processed to feel a little more charged.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think post processing, if that's what you have in mind, will improve it, due to what I see as pretty lackluster content. The composition feels awkward due to being center heavy and foreground heavy. The landscape itself doesn't hold much interest in terms of ground cover. The winding road is just there, not really accomplishing much within the picture itself. Focusing on it in some way to give it emphasis and character might have been one way to go here, but doing that in post will just feel self conscious, I imagine. The beach on the left seems to have the most potential as does the bay and mountains in the distance on the right.

 

Certainly the photo as is could be given more zip with some saturation and lighting adjustments as well as work on the contrast. If you look at that beach on the left, it's the only place that's getting energetic lighting, which makes the other ninety percent of the photo just seem dull by comparison. Without pushing it too much, the rest of the photo could be post processed to feel a little more charged.

 

Sam, I tried several steps to address the deficiencies. I changed the aspect ratio to obtain a square to address the "center-heavy" issue and to create more of a role for the road; then I used the sponge tool to increase the saturation so that the image may be viewed as less lackluster. Also, I dodged the water's edge to give it more pizazz, i.e., character.

 

Please understand that my reasons for modifying the image as described above is not to placate you, but to see whether you feel I succeeded in improving it. PS I already know the sky at the top left needs work. I didn't see a good way to accomplish that.

 

 

stkittscolorcopy.thumb.jpg.7a94f72a765d48fecda50b1aca9920db.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And by the winding road serving as lighter brushstrokes, I mean this through the use of "old school darkroom techniques" (dodging, burning, contrast) not by slapping some painting filter on it. By rendering the whole scene to a velvety black landscape (which may require a re-photographing of the image during the post-processing stage), I was thinking about something Braeckman'esque, like THIS.

 

I do believe that the raw image has to be personally meaningful to you before you can even start to mine it and make it meaningful to a viewer. If it's not meaningful to you in one shape or form, if it doesn't have some sort of mnemonic resonance, toss it and move on to the next one. But also give it room to breathe and gestate in its raw form.

 

Phil, first and foremost, the image is indeed meaningful to me, inasmuch as I had never observed a scene like this before. Secondly, the Braaekman image was a big help in illustrating your observations and suggestions; they imply that the image has potential (which I believed before posting it here).

 

I kept the original landscape format. The first step I took was to reduce the artifacts in the sky on the left of the mountains using NIK's noise reduction program, Define 2, selectively. Then, I converted the image to B&W using Silver Efex. The balance of the steps were in PS Elements 15, using the sharpening tool and both the dodging and burning tools selectively.

 

2017219073_stkittscopybw.thumb.jpg.620f6f61e1336d13a3e202f985ce0e48.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I agree, it's generally not a good idea to placate critics. Any adjustments made based on a critique should still come from the gut of the photographer. If it pleases the critic, that's gravy.

 

I intentionally said "without pushing it too much" and I feel your redone color version pushes post processing into a cartoon world of over-the-top color, texture, and feel that just don't work for me. It leans more toward the Elvis on black velvet kitsch sensibility, to my eye. I probably shouldn't have said "pushing it too much" because I actually think post processing can be pushed a whole lot and work. It's where it's pushed that counts. Your take here reads to me as being on the gawdy and neon crayola side of the ledger. I'm not familiar with the "sponge" tool but it looks like it creates a smudging and blurring which is quite strong and, to me, unsightly.

 

I just noticed your black and white and will comment ...

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, like Sam I also had my questions regarding where this could/might go. My first impression of your revised version is that it reminds me of those travel/airline posters from the late 1930's, advertising for travel to Hawai'i and the South Pacific. This is a good thing, as it opens a door for you, as the artist, to experiment further with non-documentary modifications. I still agree the image lacks a single, outstanding point of interest, but the heavily modified portions are becoming art in themselves, with the original image simply becoming another set of paints in the artist's palette. Along this line, I would consider removing those elements, like the near foreground, which are too detailed, and focus on what you already do so well: approach the balance in an abstract, perhaps even painterly way. I love those old posters, and I think I'll become very fond of this as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your black and white, to me, has more potential. With some refinement of the post work, and some cropping to make the most of the elements that work best with this sort of treatment and vision, I think it becomes a much more interesting and expressive image. The key may "velvety" which I'd work more to get. There's a strong contrast to the black and white you achieved. Having the road be an important element doesn't have to mean such a high contrast treatment of it as much as noticing it's sensual role in the scene and leading us to and through that. There are a lot of ways that subtlety and softness, with less contrast, can still draw the eye.
  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suggestion: not too fast.

 

I think there are times when a very direct and quick plunge into a photo or an idea is a great thing, full of energy and spontaneity. But, I think with the kind of process you're engaging in here, where new styles and treatments are being considered, taking many breaths between versions can be of some value. If you liked the Braekman photo, for example, I'd spend a day or two looking at his work carefully and even finding some related styles to look at. Study visually what it is he/they are doing with different images. If you come up with another version, I would wait, take a few hours or a full day away from it, then go back and look at it again with fresh eyes and you will very possibly see either more or less you could do. When you're actively working on something, you can lose frame of reference (which, again, can sometimes be a wonderful thing but sometimes not), so taking time to step away and step back can tell you if you went too far or not far enough and can also allow certain details and issues to come into better focus.

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find most compelling about this image is the serpentine road, and the way that it continues to invisibly wind its way to those distant peaks—it carries us there very gracefully because the curves in the road meld so nicely with those of the hills and mountains. To me, the road is the center of attraction both because it’s an interesting shape and because you’ve centered it in the frame. Because of that centering, I interpret the road to be your major focus of interest, also.

 

The road is having a bit of a struggle with other elements of the photo, though. The beach and surf compete strongly because of the extreme tonal contrast there—that’s an eye-grabber. In contrast, the road doesn’t have much. Along most of the road, the tonal value of the pavement is very similar to that of the surrounding vegetation, and that means the road doesn't stand out nearly as much as the beach. In one respect, though, the beach supports the road: it echoes the road’s sinuous form.

 

These considerations suggest a possible approach to post-processing with the intent of supporting the role of the road both by bolstering its visual power and by reducing the visual power of competing elements. To do the former, it may be useful to increase the tonal contrast between the road and the surrounding veg, both by carefully lightening the pavement and by darkening the surrounding vegetation.

 

Reducing the power of the shoreline is a bit more difficult because the surf is going to need to be white or it’ll look wrong. But if the sand were darkened, then the width of the white surf will be similar to that of the road, and that plays up the surf’s supporting role as an echo to the road's shape. As long as the tonal contrast around the road is similar to or greater than that around the surf, it’ll hold its own, so lightening the blue in the sea would help out here. If you convert to B&W, an easy way to adjust the tones of veg and sea is to dial down the luminance of the yellows and dial up that of the blues (you can do the same on the color version, but you can’t push it as hard), or to adjust the color mix that goes into the B&W conversion.

 

I think the way you stretched the second image vertically would also help out here—that helps emphasize the form of the curves, and increases the sense of depth along the path of the road. If you do take this approach, I think it would be very useful to keep the distant peak in the frame because it plays such a powerful role as a destination for the viewer’s gaze.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've decided to finish with a b&w version that retains the landscape format. This didn't involve did any dodging this time, except with the shorelines and the road. It did involve burning the foreground vegetation, but not anywhere else. See what y'all think.

 

 

Stkittsmonofinal.thumb.jpg.783e2b88aa884473f1639f7a14e548a4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a tourist snap, with little or no consideration beyond capturing what was in front of the camera for posterity. Taken on that level it serves its purpose fine in the original image. Looking at the scene it appears that there was a potential for several strong compositions within the frame. What I see makes me think that the photographer couldn't decide what about the scene was interesting and so simply captured it all. I do not see any way to salvage this. I take photos like this all the time on vacation. It's nice to be reminded of place I have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like a tourist snap, with little or no consideration beyond capturing what was in front of the camera for posterity. Taken on that level it serves its purpose fine in the original image. Looking at the scene it appears that there was a potential for several strong compositions within the frame. What I see makes me think that the photographer couldn't decide what about the scene was interesting and so simply captured it all. I do not see any way to salvage this. I take photos like this all the time on vacation. It's nice to be reminded of place I have been.

 

Gordon, I wonder what you think about the use of b&w - tonal range, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon, I wonder what you think about the use of b&w - tonal range, etc.

 

 

Michael, if you are referring to your posted reworks, I do not like any of them. They feel heavy handed and sloppy and do nothing to make me any more engaged with the image. By far, the best version is the one you originally posted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, if you are referring to your posted reworks, I do not like any of them. They feel heavy handed and sloppy and do nothing to make me any more engaged with the image. By far, the best version is the one you originally posted.

 

I hear you, loud and clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the original, the left side looks strong, mainly due to the beach and the light on it, and the right side seems weak. The original image "got it all", but accomplished little. The road is interesting, but it leads to beach front housing that we can't really see too well, because that part is too distant. The town across the bay is even further distant and diminished by the haze.

 

I think that the beach is the "story" here, thanks to it being relatively close and having strong light there. I think that a 5:4 crop, with the right side of the crop, just to the right of the road works best, with the beach serving as a strong diagonal, left to right. The crop should cut out some uninteresting sky and some of the space at the bottom, where the implied road goes being the limit of the crop.

 

I don't understand the attempts to "rescue" an image with jarring Contrast and Saturation, or high Contrast B&W with fog added. I would ask, is this really what hit your mind when you first observed the scene? If so, then have at it. If not, look for a story and strong points in the image and bring those out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the attempts to "rescue" an image with jarring Contrast and Saturation, or high Contrast B&W with fog added. I would ask, is this really what hit your mind when you first observed the scene? If so, then have at it. If not, look for a story and strong points in the image and bring those out.

I’m in sync with your first sentence and tend not to “rescue” images that aren’t giving me something or that are simply misses that I regret missing and try to unmiss, though even that actually is possible with a good imagination and a post processing vision. What starts out as a “rescue” can sometimes transform into a completely new animal. You gotta feel it as much as want it.

 

As to your question in the second sentence, lots of my photos have come about as the result of a process where image suggests post processing well after the time when I took the shot. Part of the joy of photography for me is this exploration of possibility. And the possibilities don’t all appear to me in or relative to a single moment of enlightenment when I’m taking the picture. As a matter of fact, sometimes getting away from the moment of capture, seeing the image on the monitor somewhat transformed from what I may have experienced—transformed, importantly, by the act of photographing it—is when I see choices before me and places to go with what I “captured.”

 

That’s not to say the feeling of the moment of taking the picture is unimportant to me and that, sometimes, it’s that feeling that carries through the entire process but, as often, I am willing to surprise myself later with where a picture will take me because of a whole lot of factors coming together throughout the process. The raw visual content, even absent the memory of shooting, can offer a post processing choice that will make me feel something new and significant as opposed to recalling what I felt then. And it’s not mutually exclusive. Some of each can be at play.

 

A photo certainly can be and often is associated with the memory of the experience. And a photo can be and often is a building upon or a break from that memory and a move toward potential and the future.

Edited by samstevens
  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right is where the whole movement and direction of the image and landscape is going to. It definitely needs the right as much as the left.

 

I still see a latent image in there somewhere.

 

Michael, can I rework and post your original image here to show you what I mean? Because words can only express so much...(and since you're saying in the OP that you're looking for suggestions of how to improve it and how to give it "life").

 

Phil, I see no way out of this morass other than what you've suggested. I am grateful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I mean by adding some sense of movement and foreground/background to the scene as well as making the swirling road more prominent. Nothing too complex.

 

[ATTACH=full]1302084[/ATTACH]

 

I get it, now Phil - a predominance of jet black shadow, a few highlights and possibly fewer midtone areas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems a great example of how challenging landscape photography can be. Here's a beautiful vista that must have been quite stunning to behold in real life, that doesn't seem to measure up to that in a photograph. Short of some post production magic, how does one make such a scene as compelling to view after the fact, as it is in the moment? Does every photo have to have (or tell) a story, or is simply documenting one's travels enough? And not to say that the current examples of post work are doing any great justice to this, per se, but..... I must say I like the latest rendition from Phil but I can't say I think it vastly improves the original image. It has a different sort of impact but I feel it detracts from the beauty of the actual place....

 

So when is a great landscape shot great, and when is it enough to simply have "been there"? I guess that's the difference between actually having been there and viewing after the fact, not having been there. OK so the is my personal challenge- I just can't seem to take compelling shots of landscapes. I have a couple from over the years I like, but in general, I find landscape photography very difficult.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when is a great landscape shot great, and when is it enough to simply have "been there"?

It depends on whether the photo is acting as a memento or wants to be independently experienced.

I guess that's the difference between actually having been there and viewing after the fact, not having been there.

A viewer can appreciate and assess a photo independently of "having been there." That's often the place viewers find themselves in and one of the beauties of good landscape and travel photography is their being able to transport us to places we haven't been.

Here's a beautiful vista that must have been quite stunning to behold in real life, that doesn't seem to measure up to that in a photograph.

Which suggests that making good photos isn't as easy as going to nice places.

Here's a beautiful vista that must have been quite stunning to behold in real life, that doesn't seem to measure up to that in a photograph.

It's worth asking a few questions, even regarding landscape photography. Can a "stunning" landscape be the subject of a photo that is something other than "stunning?" Might that be an approach to landscape photography that wouldn't put one in the odd position of trying to compete with nature? What if photographing a landscape, which might be something different from "landscape photography," became not about "measuring up" to what was in front of the camera but became about using what was in front of the camera to ... [fill in the blank]

 

On the other hand, a photographer who might have wanted a more traditional, stunning picture of this landscape that does do a bit more measuring up could have found a perspective and exposure that would have done the job. This simply was not the shot. Live and learn and move on and try again.

Edited by samstevens
  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi @michaellinder, I thought that I'd already replied to this thread but I can't find any response by me. You've already received many great tips/suggestions,To supplement these I just offer my 'standard response' to anyone requesting a critique. With all the tips/suggestions so far, only you can decide:

  • what attracted you to taking the photo (interest)
  • what your personal (intellectual, emotional) experience was at the time
  • how you could best express the above in a photo

IMHO, most photos are 'personal'. Critiques are fine but tend to be more objective than subjective. All photography is IMHO subjective.

 

Mike

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All photography is IMHO subjective.

Maybe a little clarification is in order.

 

I think subjective/objective is not such a clean dichotomy. All things have subjective and objective aspects or elements, in varying degree. Some photos are more objective and some are more subjective, but all have characteristics of each. The most personal photo couldn't communicate anything to anyone if there weren't something objective about it. And the most objective (journalistic) photo will be more objective than most but won't fully escape the subjectivity of the photographer, or the editor who chooses to publish it.

 

Critiques that don't come from the photographer herself are obviously somewhat objective to that photographer. Good photography and good critique can form a very substantial and productive partnership.

 

I think what sometimes happens is that critiques can be taken personally INSTEAD of objectively. That doesn't seem to be the case here, at all, but it is the case in many discussions I've read. There's a difference between one's subjective relationship to one's own photo and an egotistical or egocentric relationship to one's photo. True subjectivity is authentic and real. Allowing one's ego to get in the way can be much more problematic, though I respect the role of ego in a lot of art which has to be factored in.

 

When a critique is simply seen as part of one's learning and growing process it can be of great value. A critique should be given and seen to serve the photo. When critique is seen as adversarial to one's subjectivity or ego, it will rarely be worth the critic's time to even speak.

 

I agree with you that only Michael can decide what suggestions may work for him. Thankfully, he put it up for critique so his decision, like most decisions, doesn't have to take place in a vacuum. His "subjectivity" will have been informed by objective observances even if that means rejecting all the critiques and standing by the original posting.

 

A good, critical dialogue is not a contest between subjectivity and objectivity. It's more like musical counterpoint where various voices support or oppose each other at the same time building a coherence of its own.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...