Coastal Drama

Derek897

Derek897

Messages
573
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
Yes
Looks like a good spot.
PP isn't to my taste.
Not sure why its necessary to optimise for viewing on a phone?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Looks like a good spot.
PP isn't to my taste.
Not sure why its necessary to optimise for viewing on a phone?
Click to expand...

Realistically it probably isnt, but as I havent printed anything in years and any shots tend to be on social media of some shape or description, its just how these have been done.
And as I said, I already knew the pp would be a marmite thing, but so are any shots
Thanks for looking and taking the time to reply (y)(y)(y)
:):):)
 
I am not a fan of the first set that PP does very little for me. The second set are much better with #4 being the one I really like
 
Second set is a lot better.
I like the 4th one as well.
Like the 6th one, but it would be improved if you could see the rock pool she's looking into.
 
2nd set 3 and 4 are worth looking into. Processing, particularly the 1st ones, leaves a very strong and instant repulsion. The tonemapped HDR look, solid black sky and crushed shadows are something to be avoided by going to great lengths if necessary. I don't visit instagratification so I wouldn't know if that's the going "thing" now; I sure hope not.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
2nd set 3 and 4 are worth looking into. Processing, particularly the 1st ones, leaves a very strong and instant repulsion. The tonemapped HDR look, solid black sky and crushed shadows are something to be avoided by going to great lengths if necessary. I don't visit instagratification so I wouldn't know if that's the going "thing" now; I sure hope not.
Click to expand...
It’s not.

sorry to say op but the processing on the first lot is a mess. The second set are somewhat better. There are some shots definitely worth editing again.
 
Derek897 said:
PP wont be to everyones taste, but optimized for ph based viewing
Click to expand...

My experience is that the smaller the image, the harder it has to punch, and for an image to make an impact at phone-screen size then the processing has to be pretty ugly when viewed like a normal photo. I could imagine these would go down well at phone-size because they're so striking, and for the target market, there's no interest in reality or viewing 30" X 20" prints.

If Portraine Cliff were reprocessed for nature and cropped a little at the top, that would make a very pleasing image.
 
ancient_mariner said:
My experience is that the smaller the image, the harder it has to punch, and for an image to make an impact at phone-screen size then the processing has to be pretty ugly when viewed like a normal photo. I could imagine these would go down well at phone-size because they're so striking, and for the target market, there's no interest in reality or viewing 30" X 20" prints.

If Portraine Cliff were reprocessed for nature and cropped a little at the top, that would make a very pleasing image.
Click to expand...

Cheers Toni, yea that is pretty much the way I see it too, thats why i said in the original post they were optimized for phone based apps, I do still do standard editing too for most of my stuff is on flickr anyway, the ugly and the down right ugly :giggle::giggle:
The 1st set are not really for pc viewing.

is this a better edit / version, that you meant ? as this is more akin to my normal style

IMGP2304edsm by dr.shutter, on Flickr
 
ancient_mariner said:
My experience is that the smaller the image, the harder it has to punch, and for an image to make an impact at phone-screen size then the processing has to be pretty ugly when viewed like a normal photo. I could imagine these would go down well at phone-size because they're so striking, and for the target market, there's no interest in reality or viewing 30" X 20" prints.

If Portraine Cliff were reprocessed for nature and cropped a little at the top, that would make a very pleasing image.
Click to expand...

To an extent yes but phones have a very vivid screen profile which often deepens blacks and intensifies colours and contrast - one might argue if you’re configuring something for mobile viewing hold back on the PP because the devices screen is going to add a whole lot for you.

Apple phones do another thing where they intensify whites and wash the blacks out in a bid to make the images stand out in sunlight. It’s more than simply a screen brightness change, the whole screen profile changes until you lock the phone and cover the front camera up - then you get the “normal” screen profile.

My point - if the OP is serious about processing and mobile development- less really is more
 
That first set were also processed on my ph.
Look I get it I do.
But I just don't agree with your less is more for phone viewing, but that's ok too, as its interesting to have discussions and feedback. I dont need to agree. And I genuinely appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to give a proper thought out reply too.

And for the record it's not my usual style of pp

SFTPhotography said:
To an extent yes but phones have a very vivid screen profile which often deepens blacks and intensifies colours and contrast - one might argue if you’re configuring something for mobile viewing hold back on the PP because the devices screen is going to add a whole lot for you.

Apple phones do another thing where they intensify whites and wash the blacks out in a bid to make the images stand out in sunlight. It’s more than simply a screen brightness change, the whole screen profile changes until you lock the phone and cover the front camera up - then you get the “normal” screen profile.

My point - if the OP is serious about processing and mobile development- less really is more
Click to expand...
 
SFTPhotography said:
To an extent yes but phones have a very vivid screen profile which often deepens blacks and intensifies colours and contrast - one might argue if you’re configuring something for mobile viewing hold back on the PP because the devices screen is going to add a whole lot for you.

Apple phones do another thing where they intensify whites and wash the blacks out in a bid to make the images stand out in sunlight. It’s more than simply a screen brightness change, the whole screen profile changes until you lock the phone and cover the front camera up - then you get the “normal” screen profile.

My point - if the OP is serious about processing and mobile development- less really is more
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree here. Phone screens have come a long way in terms of quality and resolution. As you said they do some stupid things too like applying default super vivid profile or even messing with contrast and clarity. That just means even unsaturated image may appear super colourful, so absolutely nothing beyond standard saturation should be necessary.

Overall phones as almost like those small 6'x4" prints or whatever they are, except it is of course brighter and backlit, making it easier. At that size simple graphic compositions have much better chance, whereas more complex views really need to compete with windows for size and placement.

Contrast and colour is always good, but they should rather be natural or naturally occurring. If I may, many images here have neither and making it artificially makes an artificial view. It's probably better there take up modernist painting, of which I am not the target market.
 
Derek897 said:
Cheers Toni, yea that is pretty much the way I see it too, thats why i said in the original post they were optimized for phone based apps, I do still do standard editing too for most of my stuff is on flickr anyway, the ugly and the down right ugly :giggle::giggle:
The 1st set are not really for pc viewing.

is this a better edit / version, that you meant ? as this is more akin to my normal style

IMGP2304edsm by dr.shutter, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I like the water/rocks in that much better, and would crop the picture to remove the sky, reframing as necessary. The brightness of the sky draws the eyes away from the more important area, while having nothing attractive about it.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I would tend to agree here. Phone screens have come a long way in terms of quality and resolution. As you said they do some stupid things too like applying default super vivid profile or even messing with contrast and clarity. That just means even unsaturated image may appear super colourful, so absolutely nothing beyond standard saturation should be necessary.

Overall phones as almost like those small 6'x4" prints or whatever they are, except it is of course brighter and backlit, making it easier. At that size simple graphic compositions have much better chance, whereas more complex views really need to compete with windows for size and placement.

Contrast and colour is always good, but they should rather be natural or naturally occurring. If I may, many images here have neither and making it artificially makes an artificial view. It's probably better there take up modernist painting, of which I am not the target market.
Click to expand...


:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
I'm all for creative processing, these though are several steps too far imo. I get the fact you want them contrasty/grungy but there are areas of D&B that are brutal and just don't work imho, there are also halo's and banding throughout which is a sign they have been pushed too much too fast! The trick to this type of processing along with most styles is to get harmonious tones, these just have a mucky & rushed feel to them.
 
Neil Burnell said:
I'm all for creative processing, these though are several steps too far imo. I get the fact you want them contrasty/grungy but there are areas of D&B that are brutal and just don't work imho, there are also halo's and banding throughout which is a sign they have been pushed too much too fast! The trick to this type of processing along with most styles is to get harmonious tones, these just have a mucky & rushed feel to them.
Click to expand...

Cheers Neil.
I Take it all on board,
Just keep in mind these really are only for viewing on a ph, which is where I should have left them

Cheers again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top