It Was A Dark and Stormy Night

Thank you for looking... all opinions are very welcome.

stormy weather clearly makes for some great pictures and this is no exception.

Great title for this stunning image , love the texture in the rocks and the foggy water .

Beautiful image Glen....wonderful use of light...post processing is just lovely...congrats..very talented ..........amazes me....jus lovely...sincerely, Gail

wow the colors are amazing.

the misty water... the clouds..

Beautiful !

 

Well done and thank you for sharing

 

Isa

Beautiful

Very nice image!

Yet, another success.

I have to say it Glen, and I dont mean this in a vindictive way in the slightest, my sentiment is purely constructive, but to me this is excessive processing.

 

This picture had me wander through your seascapes folder and let me firstly commend you as you have a good eye for composition. I just feel you are handing the images over to the computer, the computer now has ownership of this picture, rather than you. There are some lovely images with good movement and interesting form, you have a good skills, but I am left feeling you have over processed many of the images in your seascapes folder in an attempt to get the drama I feel was already in the image to start with.

 

Please dont feel this is some kind of personal attack, its far from it. I can see strong development in your style, I just dont want to see your future photorgraphy inherit the CGI, Disney, better than life, super saturated look that infects so many digital images, because I think your images probably start out far better than you actually believe.

Thankyou everybody for your kind comments.

 

David,

 

Thank you for taking the time to look at my images. I don't understand the comment that the image is over processed, however. Here is the original image straight out of lightroom. Please can somebody clarify your comments so I can understand what you mean.

 

Thanks,

 

Glen

It the saturation that pushes the image too far. The RAW file looks far more natural. A slight increase would not have gone amiss. Do you profile your monitor by the way?

 

 

David,

 

The saturation hasn't been pushed at all. The white balance has been changed to make it warmer. Also selective Levels adjustment will increase the saturation if the section is darker. The rocks are actually that colour and the rain was falling heavily while the image was taken, so the colours just jumped. I do take pride in trying to capture the image in camera without blending, so I still don't see how this image is over processed. Anyway, each to their own.

 

Of course I have a calibrated monitor. I own an Eizo.

 

Do you have a calibrated monitor?

 

I'm sure there way too many people with uncalibrated monitors making image judgements on this site.

 

Thanks for your imput, David...

 

Glen

Lovely image Glen . Real simple comp but misty water and moody sky does all the talking. I've been around the sandstone shoreline of NSW and I know what you mean by the colour of the rocks round there. We have a few places in Scotland where the colours of the rocks are also extraordinary, especially when wet. Sometimes I think its hard to believe that nature can conjour up such vibrancy!

Nice work

Regards

Ferg

 

Sorry, i don't believe that is a RAW file on looking again, its been worked on already. Its where the cliff meets the sea on the horizon, there is acute halo. I am leaving this thread.

Thanks Fergus for your comments... appreciated...

 

As David walks off in a huff because he can't find any over processing and slams the door in embarrasment...

Glen, that's not a very nice way of responding to someone who was simply trying to be helpful and offer an honest opinion.

 

Quite frankly, I don't care whether the colours are natural or not (here or anywhere else), I don't care whether an image is 'real' or PSed. I've done my share of post production work. I only care about the effect a photo has upon me. I would say, though, that my first response to this and numerous other images in your pages is that they do not look natural; nor do they look pleasing to my eye.

 

For my sake, I agree with David's assessment: this was a better image in its 'RAW' state as you posted it. I find the colours off-putting and too dominant in your submitted image – especially given the emotional feeling of the rest of the scene.

 

Perhaps you shouldn't much care about my opinion, though, as our tastes are clearly quite different. There is very little in your whole portfolio to which I don't respond negatively and you seem to have plenty of people who quite appreciate your style. So, don't change for my sake.

 

Cheers and best of luck in your photography!

Ian,

 

I think you missed the point. To insult somebody that the computer did all the work is about as low as you can go. I like how my images turn out & if you lived in Australia you would see that these colours are natural.

I don't think that anyone was insinuating that "a computer did all the work". Whether a photographer does the work in camera or afterward seems inconsequential to me – it is still all in the artist's discretion.

There's nothing inherently better about effects achieved during exposure compared with those achieved later.

And, I think you missed my point. It is not important (to me) whether these colours are natural or not. They don't work for me here. They don't work for me because they conflict with the other effects this photo has on me emotionally. Even if it was making the image less natural, I would have desaturated the rocks.

 

Ian,

 

Let's be brutally honest here... when I saw that David Clapp had made a comment on my photo, I was excited to think he took the time to look and pass on something of use.

But... he started by saying... "I dont mean this in a vindictive way"... this means I'm being vindictive, but please take it on the chin. Okay... I was looking for some constructive criticism, but to say...

 

"I just feel you are handing the images over to the computer, the computer now has ownership of this picture, rather than you."

 

In anybody's language this is simply saying that "a computer did all the work"... so, yes, he did say that!

 

He also went onto insult me with...

"I just dont want to see your future photorgraphy inherit the CGI, Disney, better than life, super saturated look...". Okay, so now my photos... not only this one, but all look like cartoons.

 

So, you say "And, I think you missed my point. It is not important (to me) whether these colours are natural or not. They don't work for me here. They don't work for me because they conflict with the other effects this photo has on me emotionally. Even if it was making the image less natural, I would have desaturated the rocks."

 

Okay... this is the first bit of serious criticism and I do appreciate it, but why not just say that the rocks look over saturated. Maybe they were... maybe not... but it's worth noting and keeping in mind.

 

To finish, if David had just said that instead of saying that the image is over processed without an explanation, that is helpful and constructive. You even lowered yourself to his level by being pretty destructive towards all my images. I really don't understand how some people's egos are so huge that they feel that their opinion is IT. In Australia, we have harsh light, harsh colours and if you came here for some sunrise beach shots, you will also see that, there is NO over saturation happening.

 

I hope you two learn from this experience and if you'd like to offer criticism, please make it real and not a general... "I don't like your images and you should do what I say and change them to the way I like to see them in the UK (where the light and conditions are very different)... be humble...

 

Regards,

 

Glen

 

 

One final set of thoughts:

 

1. "You even lowered yourself to his level by being pretty destructive towards all my images."

 

I don't think I was "destructive" towards your work. I didn't say it was bad, that it should be rounded up and burned, that anyone who enjoyed it was a fool, or any other such comment which could be considered vindictive and mean-spirited.

 

What I did say, was that your taste and my taste are clearly different. I said that I don't connect with much of your work personally due to the aesthetic choices of presentation you make. However, surely this is the case with anyone's work. I am under no misconception that my own work doesn't alienate an equal or greater share of viewers.

 

I did note that your style seems to work for a lot of other people given your ratings and comments here on PN. Moreover, the fact that your images have a shared aesthetic is a great thing – it clearly shows that you do have a style. It is better to have a style than not to have one, and it is rather inconsequential that it doesn't work for me.

 

I also noted that to my eye, and with regards to my experiences (which you rightly point out do not include the Australia landscape – but, do include a number of Australia photographers' works), your images often push what I would consider 'natural-looking'. I did also make it clear that 'natural-looking' was not necessarily a goal that I, personally, cared much about, but, rather, that I was more interested in the emotional response to the landscape and how the stylistic choices in the image worked to either further that emotional response or to hamper it.

 

Now, you might ask, why would I bother to comment at all then, given my above stated feelings. Well, I appreciate it when people comment on my work and let me know they just don't "get it" for some reason or another (and say the reason). It helps me know who is likely to be in my audience and who isn't and allows me to be conscious of whom I am excluding or including in that potential audience when I make artistic choices. I feel it better to be aware of the consequences of my choices and for whom they will work or not, than to be blindly hopeful for a good response from a given audience for a given style.

 

2. "I really don't understand how some people's egos are so huge that they feel that their opinion is IT."

 

I hope that was directed at David, because I certainly don't think my opinion is IT.

 

Quite frankly, I think there might be more of an audience and more appreciation for "the CGI, Disney, better than life, super saturated look" than for a more tame naturalistic approach in the manner of David Ward, or Joe Cornish.

 

Quite frankly, I even find a lot of Galen Rowell's work (and maybe even some of my own at the moment) too far down the "better than life, super saturated" slope and Rowell is held as an icon by so many.

 

Heck, I find some of David's images (often, his most successful) too far along the "better than life, super saturated" road.

 

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

Yours,

 

Ian

 

 

 

Thank you for your comments, Ian. You brought the discussion back to how it should have started.