Worth Reading

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Yes, those are wonderful, Tim, and proof that good landscapes will always be in season.</p>

<p>As for "shear" versus "sheer," yes, of course, I knew that it was a typo.</p>

<p>I am a careful typist myself, Tim, as you ought to be. </p>

<p>I nevre make mistakes.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I too agree with the author in large part, and think that most of these over the top landscapes will not stand the test of time. When color saturation, contrast, and PP are used with such rabid abandon it is like an over sweet treat. Add to that, that when regular people go to these sites and see the real deal they're often left disappointed, because the place looks drab next to the concocted photograph.<br>

In the long run I think the photographs that hold up best are the ones that don't stray too far from the real world, and have a recognizable individual style. Those do seem in short supply.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Turn up the saturation by fifteen percent, send the contrast through the roof, and damn the torpedoes. . . .</p>

<p>Gosh, just about anybody can do that--and a lot of people apparently are doing precisely that.</p>

<p>It's a simple formula, and mama almost always likes it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Just jacking up the saturation and contrast will not produce the effects in Tim's Grand Canyon examples. That will start blowing out the details. A better approach is to use tone mapping software to control the local contrast. I don't touch the saturation, but I may increase the vibrance. When this is well done, the tone mapping will produce an image that is closer to what the human visual system perceives. Our eyes have some local adaptation built in. Our brains do a lot more. A straight photographic system where the optical density is proportional to the luminance of the scene has no adaptation. </p>

<p>I got a copy of Photomatix Pro 5 recently and have been experimenting with tone mapping. I quickly found that it is possible to over do the process. When I get it right, it really does look like I remember the scene. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>A better approach is to use tone mapping software to control the local contrast. I don't touch the saturation, but I may increase the vibrance. When this is well done, the tone mapping will produce an image that is closer to what the human visual system perceives. Our eyes have some local adaptation built in. Our brains do a lot more. A straight photographic system where the optical density is proportional to the luminance of the scene has no adaptation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's cutting edge research centered around the adaptive effect of the human optical system and is the basis of the new tone controls in PV2012 ACR/LR.</p>

<p>Note the middle image in the sample showing local contrast clarity viewed in dim shadows in the linked article... http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html</p>

<p>The very thing I've been pulling my hair out trying to achieve in PV2003 to PV2012 which is local contrast without halos has been studied by scientists so that means I haven't been too picky with my editing.</p>

<p>When you know it looks wrong, trust yourself it's WRONG!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Just jacking up the saturation and contrast will not produce the effects in Tim's Grand Canyon examples. That will start blowing out the details. A better approach is to use tone mapping software to control the local contrast. I don't touch the saturation, but I may increase the vibrance.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ron, did you seriously think that I was suggesting that that was the way to make good photos? That is the way to make terrible cliché landscapes. Anybody can do that--and a lot of persons appear to be doing precisely that.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[randrew1]

<p>No, Lannie, I understood the sarcasm. I was trying to say that, even if you want oversaturated landscapes, just jacking up the saturation and contrast will not get you there. The process of tonemapping is more involved and it can be used to good effect if you don't overdo it. <br>

<br>

FWIW, <a href="http://fatali.com/">Michael Fatali</a> produced many saturated, but very pleasing landscapes with film and optical prints. I suspect he did a lot of dodging and burning in. Some years ago I saw an exhibit of his work. By starting with 8x10 film, he produced 20x30 prints that were grainless and tack sharp. There were none of the typical visual clues that say "this is a photograph". The framed prints looked like windows into an alternate reality. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>FWIW, <a href="http://fatali.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Michael Fatali</a> produced many saturated, but very pleasing landscapes with film and optical prints. I suspect he did a lot of dodging and burning in. Some years ago I saw an exhibit of his work. By starting with 8x10 film, he produced 20x30 prints that were grainless and tack sharp. There were none of the typical visual clues that say "this is a photograph". The framed prints looked like windows into an alternate reality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never heard of that photographer, Ron, but then I never kept up with photographers in general, anyway.</p>

<p>I don't see an improvement or anything pleasing compared to what I linked to or the other over dramatized landscapes railed against in the blog article. That's just way too much saturation to just accept as being attributed to a matter of taste in landscape styles. I couldn't stand 10 seconds looking at Fatali's gallery. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>The art of making images, particularly large ones, quickly became my obsession. --Fatali</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I find myself wondering just how saturated they might appear if printed and viewed very large.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Maybe diminished looking depending on what type of printing process but Fatali should know if he's shooting and rendering the color to compensate for printer clipping then that's what he should post in his online gallery, a photo of the print.</p>

<p>I still wouldn't want to hang anything that saturated on my wall even if it was toned down on a print. </p>

<p>The real crux IMO of the issue regarding making landscapes appear over dramatized is that if the photographer makes it too obvious then it becomes a "thang" as it distracts and becomes the most noticeable aspect of the image. As it's been said earlier in this thread the photographer is communicating to the viewer every choice made whether obvious and/or subtle in an image including landscapes. And because it's a still all those choices get amplified to the viewer.</p>