Near lostwithiel. Cornwall.

I'm a bit in too minds, it's a lovely scene and obviously has plenty of potential and I do like your rendition of it but it feels a bit "cold" on my monitor at least
 
I have little issue with the composition overall - I enjoy those two inclined trunks to the right and their arching branches, but I do have issues with the seeming lack of focus - the whole thing's a bit of a blur, isn't it?

It's all a bit 'buzzy', texture-wise. As if you were clumsily trying to imitate painting, using photography. And where's the eye meant to travel or rest? The contrast seems over-hyped. I'd like to see the image you started with, before any processing had been done?

So back to a re-start with the same material ...

Clue back into realism, because you're not artist enough to escape the net, yet. But on the basis of this image, you have potential. And in the end you have to come to things by yourself, in your own time.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with the comments above. There's no reason why an image needs to be of a particular colour temperature, or sharp (Orton or Gaussian blur?). Nor does the eye have to travel or rest in every photograph. Each image has to be seen for what it is - which is not to say it can't be better, just that it need not follow preconceptions or rules. There is something about this image that made me come back to it - composition and mood - and that is a good thing.
 
:agree: I find this a most intriguing and attractive image. I love the moody atmosphere and light.
 
Thanks for the comments so far, I was aiming to convey the gloomy, moody atmosphere I felt at the time.
 
There’s too much processing, the Orton effect is well overdone here. Go back to basics with composition and light and be gentler with the editing
 
Consider the possibility that he processed it like this because this is how he likes it though?

Droj said that one of my photos (posted last week) was too gaudy and made him feel uncomfortable.

I posted it in my Landscape Photography album on facebook , a friend said that he loves it and asked me to get it printed on metal for him to put on and finish off his studio wall.

Photography is a form of art and therefore subjective. I also think its about more than focus and whether something is crisp or not.

Do we all take issue with ICM photography? Or is that acceptable because someone coined a name and gave it a title?

For me I like the image and mood in this, the light and shadows and the mood and atmosphere.
 
smr said:
Consider the possibility that he processed it like this because this is how he likes it though?

Droj said that one of my photos (posted last week) was too gaudy and made him feel uncomfortable.

I posted it in my Landscape Photography album on facebook , a friend said that he loves it and asked me to get it printed on metal for him to put on and finish off his studio wall.

Photography is a form of art and therefore subjective. I also think its about more than focus and whether something is crisp or not.

Do we all take issue with ICM photography? Or is that acceptable because someone coined a name and gave it a title?

For me I like the image and mood in this, the light and shadows and the mood and atmosphere.
Click to expand...

People certainly have different tastes and what doesn't work for one person might be someone else's favourite picture. It's also true that photographers often have completely different tastes to non-photographers who usually prefer more saturated and obvious editing. There's an element of subjective of course but looking at a lot of images posted here lately they've gone overboard with the Orton effect, at least to my tastes. Why has this effect become such a big thing? I can only guess because Thomas Heaton and Simon Baxter have shown it in recent videos of theirs, but they only use it subtly which is how it's best used or pictures can look very odd. It's also best used when there's a bit of mist and golden sunlight where you have a bit more licence for 'romantic' processing. I think this shot would be nice without the obvious glow (and would benefit from a 5/4 type crop), but conditions looked a bit flat so my recommendation would be to go back when there's fog and hopefully light breaking through - rely on the conditions to give effects which can then be enhanced. That's my view anyway :)
 
I never thought I would get such a marmite response to my photo. Here's the original so anyone can show how they would have processed it.
_DSC5660 by Andy Martin, on Flickr
 
Well, I can quite honestly say that I've never heard of Orton before so it must be a trend. It was a bit like that with HDR and 10 stop filters. I'd never heard of them and suddenly everyone was doing it. Some trends are more long-lasting than others, but personally I doubt if Orton will last very long (whatever it is.......).:exit:
 
It does look like an Orton effect, something I've been trying lately too. I think I've processed 6 images this way now and only 1 of them works, it's very easy to overdo.

If you've used a layer for the effect, reduce it's opacity to tame the effect. This is of course assuming you want to, as there is nothing wrong in putting your own stamp on your images and doing it your way. (y)

Moody? Certainly is. :)
 
That’s a huge difference between the raw and edited image. For me it’s quite clear a more sympathetic edit would be in order. It’s not a dark dramatic scene to start with so the moody look really doesn’t suit it. The raw is actually very nice (at least while viewing on my phone), it doesn’t seem to need much if anything doing.

Edit. - I've viewed this on a large screen for the first time and the focus is off - you can see the focus seems to have been on the background tree when it should have been on the front one. It means everything that needs to be sharp is soft and the background is sharp. I think a larger depth of field would've helped you here, maybe something like f8-f11 rather than the f4 you used. If you can it would be worth going back because you can't fix the focus error in processing. A bit of mist especially with soft morning light and a gentle edit could work very well.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I can quite honestly say that I've never heard of Orton before so it must be a trend
Click to expand...
Yes, a passing fad that Michael Orton created back in the days of slide film :)
http://www.michaelortonphotography.com/ortoneffect.html

Scirocco_09 said:
For me it’s quite clear a more sympathetic edit would be in order.
Click to expand...
As you agreed further up thread different people like different things and I really don't see why people have to be so strident in their views, if the OP likes it this way then that’s how they like it. It’s OK for you to not like it but IMHO we should evaluate the work as presented rather than telling someone to present a different image. If you look at the link above you seem to be suggesting that Michael Orton’s own images wouldn’t meet your criteria for the eponymously named Orton effect.
 
sirch said:
Yes, a passing fad that Michael Orton created back in the days of slide film :)
http://www.michaelortonphotography.com/ortoneffect.html


As you agreed further up thread different people like different things and I really don't see why people have to be so strident in their views, if the OP likes it this way then that’s how they like it. It’s OK for you to not like it but IMHO we should evaluate the work as presented rather than telling someone to present a different image. If you look at the link above you seem to be suggesting that Michael Orton’s own images wouldn’t meet your criteria for the eponymously named Orton effect.
Click to expand...

The thing is hardly anyone helps on here because most of the critique is just 'great shot'. I try and give more input than that and I guess sometimes it doesn't go down well. The raw shows this is a very gentle scene and the dark moody look in the original edit doesn't suit - if it was shot at night then it would be fine, but the conditions the OP had just doesn't suit that type of edit. The OP is free to do whatever they like with their pictures but hopefully we can suggest ideas that might help or at least provide debate. And no I don't like Michael's 'Orton effect' pictures, he overdid it (in my opinion)
 
Last edited:
kernowbhoy said:
Does this version appeal to more ?
Click to expand...
As above for me - the raw is a bright and peaceful scene so what's making you edit it dark and moody? Ultimately it's up to you but my suggestion would be to go back when conditions are favourable for what you want to portray - if moody why not go at dawn or dusk? This image also has a flaw with your focus and you can only fix that by reshooting. I do think it'll work in the right conditions
 
Orton is a nice effect but only when used subtly. I think if you can see the effect then you have prob gone too far, the effect really works best when it only softens the highlights rather than softening the whole image and being noticeable IMO. The edited image is certainly better from a processing point of view, but I'd personally look to shoot it again in more favourable conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top