What Lies Ahead

Very nice shot, with some lovely colour & atmosphere.(y)

George.
 
Maybe I feel too grumpy today but I just don't feel atmosphere here because it is so incredibly underexposed. Just ignore the sun spot and look at the rest. -2 EV in the very best case. Maybe -3 EV. I would also take this a few meters further to avoid all the messy straws. Or ideally look for a more enchanting foreground altogether.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Maybe I feel too grumpy today but I just don't feel atmosphere here because it is so incredibly underexposed. Just ignore the sun spot and look at the rest. -2 EV in the very best case. Maybe -3 EV. I would also take this a few meters further to avoid all the messy straws. Or ideally look for a more enchanting foreground altogether.
Click to expand...

While agree the position the shot is taken from should maybe have been over the fence to the left I would say that the exposure levels give the feel to the image and as such are not underexposed if deliberate.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
While agree the position the shot is taken from should maybe have been over the fence to the left I would say that the exposure levels give the feel to the image and as such are not underexposed if deliberate.
Click to expand...

How is this not underexposure, unless you are walking with black glasses on? Look at the top left corner. It is nearly black. It would be very bright over there in real life already.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
How is this not underexposure, unless you are walking with black glasses on? Look at the top left corner. It is nearly black. It would be very bright over there in real life already.
Click to expand...

You make this statement as though there is only one possible way to expose and process this scene. As a fine art landscape photographer it is difficult to believe you have such rigid views on such things. You have a liking for very bright images as can be seen on your Flickr pages.

I did not say this was not underexposed compared to how the scene looked to the human eye when the shot was taken. You do not show images that are just as seen when the shots where taken that is art. If the OP wishes to use these exposure levels to show the scene how they wish that is thier artistic expression of the scene. You may have an opinion on that but what you say is just that an opinion.

If everyone follows this sort of path we will end up with an average photo at best.
 
Last edited:
alfbranch said:
You make this statement as though there is only one possible way to expose and process this scene. As a fine art landscape photographer it is difficult to believe you have such rigid views on such things. You have a liking for very bright images as can be seen on your Flickr pages.

I did not say this was not underexposed compared to how the scene looked to the human eye when the shot was taken. You do not show images that are just as seen when the shots where taken that is art. If the OP wishes to use these exposure levels to show the scene how they wish that is thier artistic expression of the scene. You may have an opinion on that but what you say is just that an opinion.

If everyone follows this sort of path we will end up with an average photo at best.
Click to expand...


Completely disagree with you. The image would be far more accurate representation of Moonrise rather than bright sunny morning. We are well past any style and taste differences here. It is like if I brought out my version of this shot with pink sky, or heck green one and rest it on fine art credentials. Maybe if I make it crazy enough it will actually work, but this on the other hand feels like is aiming for a natural rendering. So at what point do you start calling out the obvious? Blur, shake, colour casts, exposure way out of the expected range? Or none of it? I understand when things are obviously international AND when they work.
The problem is most you have screens set at 100% brightness, few bother to calibrate and edit at night in a dark room. There is the underlying problem of it all. Have a go at printing this (not through lab that autocorrect going a very long way away if needed) and you will see exactly what is going on. My prints look just like my screen output. Would this???!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Completely disagree with you. The image would be far more accurate representation of Moonrise rather than bright sunny morning. We are well past any style and taste differences here. It is like if I brought out my version of this shot with pink sky, or heck green one and rest it on fine art credentials. Maybe if I make it crazy enough it will actually work, but this on the other hand feels like is aiming for a natural rendering. So at what point do you start calling out the obvious? Blur, shake, colour casts, exposure way out of the expected range? Or none of it? I understand when things are obviously international AND when they work.
The problem is most you have screens set at 100% brightness, few bother to calibrate and edit at night in a dark room. There is the underlying problem of it all. Have a go at printing this (not through lab that autocorrect going a very long way away if needed) and you will see exactly what is going on. My prints look just like my screen output. Would this???!
Click to expand...

Screen calibration and editing in a controlled environment is the only way. Editing in a room with the sun pouring in is not the way to go. You'll never accurately get the shadow areas just right.

Using Adobe 1998 screen profile and ensure the screen is set up properly is a good first step.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm
 
Lovely photo. It must be tricky to get a photo with such a bright area and dark shadows. I think you have done a great job. Not that you asked for critique! Merry Christmas.
 
I see banding in the clouds - is this just the result of jpg compression, or is it a result of processing on the original?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Completely disagree with you. The image would be far more accurate representation of Moonrise rather than bright sunny morning. !
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree but your points are basically that art is only allowed in the way that suits you. If you said you did not like this because the this or that then that is fine but you are trying to impose your opinion on someone to limit thier art.

Try having a think about what art is.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I see banding in the clouds - is this just the result of jpg compression, or is it a result of processing on the original?
Click to expand...

My money is on compression. Going from a 36mp 100mb tiff to a under 1mb little jpeg creates all sorts of problems.

It doesn't look heavily processed with little shadow or highlight recovery so I reckon the original is clean
 
alfbranch said:
We will have to disagree but your points are basically that art is only allowed in the way that suits you. If you said you did not like this because the this or that then that is fine but you are trying to impose your opinion on someone to limit thier art.

Try having a think about what art is.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with everything here as well. Where did I say all these things or you have freedom to extrapolate my thoughts further as it suits the narrative? Fine. Welcome to talkCNN.

Underexposure is not art. Camera shake is not form of art. Well mostly. It is either very international and obvious or it is not. Can you have dark image that works? Sure. But it has some cleverly international highlights somewhere. This does not. Not even close. Contrast? None once you take the sun away.

This is editing on a screen far too bright and / or getting confused with the sun because that will hit highlight territory at very low exposure and then we are stuck with that because it is too scary or difficult to go any further where the rest of the image goes out of deep shadow territory. That's 101. Well since when do you have to be able to make out details in the sun sphere? It is just pure white. Deal with the rest. All of this has nothing to do with art at this point. It's just a basic correct exposure. Then the art begins or resumes.

Oh and for the record I also don't think that horrible random squiggles equate with multi million pound art either. It's just a money laundering scheme :)
 
Last edited:
SFTPhotography said:
Screen calibration and editing in a controlled environment is the only way. Editing in a room with the sun pouring in is not the way to go. You'll never accurately get the shadow areas just right.

Using Adobe 1998 screen profile and ensure the screen is set up properly is a good first step.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/monitor-calibration.htm
Click to expand...

Sure that is not a good way either. We haven't had sunshine for 2 months now. It's polar winter.

Most LCD presets are very crap at least they used to be in Dells. Its best to go with full native profile, set brightness to where it belongs and just calibrate that.
 
droj said:
Erm .... tell us, Alf. What is art? Perhaps explain what makes your own pictures art, as you claim them to be?
Click to expand...

First off I am not the one who is claiming to be a fine art photographer

https://www.flickr.com/people/daugirdas/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-art_photography

As to what is art that is open to a big debate. Whether anything I shoot is art and is any good is also for others to decide not me I may believe it to be good or art but this only my opinion.
 
I am going to prove it very clearly for you all. Since the Editing is "Yes", I did one single modification - a black square over the sun. Honestly nothing else was touched. So what would the experts now say about no underexposure?

Untitled-1.jpg

Screenshot 2018-12-21 at 11.38.01.png
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I completely disagree with everything here as well. Where did I say all these things or you have freedom to extrapolate my thoughts further as it suits the narrative? Fine. Welcome to talkCNN.

Underexposure is not art. Camera shake is not form of art. Well mostly. It is either very international and obvious or it is not. Can you have dark image that works? Sure. But it has some cleverly international highlights somewhere. This does not. Not even close. Contrast? None once you take the sun away.

This is editing on a screen far too bright and / or getting confused with the sun because that will hit highlight territory at very low exposure and then we are stuck with that because it is too scary or difficult to go any further where the rest of the image goes out of deep shadow territory. That's 101. Well since when do you have to be able to make out details in the sun sphere? It is just pure white. Deal with the rest. All of this has nothing to do with art at this point. It's just a basic correct exposure. Then the art begins or resumes.

Oh and for the record I also don't think that horrible random squiggles equate with multi million pound art either. It's just a money laundering scheme :)
Click to expand...

If John intended this hsot to look like this at the time of shooting and exposed to create that look it correctly exposed and processed whether you agree or like it.

If he intended it to look different or would like it to look different and has badly calibrated screen that is different. If you have seen John's workstation (I have not) then you can judge from that but I cannot.

Did you ask if he had calibrated his monitor?
Did you ask him what is intent was?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I am going to prove it very clearly for you all. Since the Editing is "Yes", I did one single modification - a black square over the sun. Honestly nothing else was touched. So what would the experts now say about no underexposure?

View attachment 140691

View attachment 140692
Click to expand...

That proves the histogram is stacked to the left and while I may not choose to do that it does not make it wrong.
 
alfbranch said:
As to what is art that is open to a big debate. Whether anything I shoot is art and is any good is also for others to decide not me I may believe it to be good or art but this only my opinion.
Click to expand...

Remember this thread is NOT about ME. Start another if you so wish.

I can tell you the interior wok I do for agencies is not art. Its a functional image made to order. Is wedding art, or perhaps where does it start to become art? Are client portraits art? Or where do they become art? Walkabout snaps? Walkabout landscapes with thought? Or major projects you spend 3 months planning out? Perhaps somewhere in between. To me intent is where the difference begins. Obviously you can have nice art, crap art and anything in between too. Its mostly in between as your idea and my idea will be different. "Though provoking" literal crap in jar is not art however you try to make it to be. Yes, such crap exists and you can't afford it.
 
Judging by John's other work we should expect him at least to know how to carefully interpret a scene to fit his personal vision. Processing goals and skills vary but in my opinion this is a dreamy depiction, full of warm tones and dense shadows. Works for me.
 
alfbranch said:
That proves the histogram is stacked to the left and while I may not choose to do that it does not make it wrong.
Click to expand...

To translate that into human language the sky is almost black particularly in the corners. On a bright sunny morning! I may be wrong but at this point I would bet money it was a byproduct of dealing with the sun in less than ideal way. Unless you go out of your way this is what you end up with after most simple Lightroom edit and you need to get past it.
 
Sam Tip said:
Judging by John's other work we should expect him at least to know how to carefully interpret a scene to fit his personal vision. Processing goals and skills vary but in my opinion this is a dreamy depiction, full of warm tones and dense shadows. Works for me.
Click to expand...

I might as well say this now. I find this to be the far worst image in his 1st page of flickr. By a long margin. There are another 2 or three where it is less than ideal, namely sky darkened to extreme and some other little bits but overall it's a nice and interesting page with quality content.

You are always judged by your very worst (sad but true) so I'd just get rid of it completely.

edit: I'm done with this thread as I've said everything I wanted, and like always my intention is perhaps a hard hitting if it need be but truthful and helpful comment in the long run.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I might as well say this now. I find this to be the far worst image in his 1st page of flickr. By a long margin. There are another 2 or three where it is less than ideal, namely sky darkened to extreme and some other little bits but overall it's a nice and interesting page with quality content.

You are always judged by your very worst (sad but true) so I'd just get rid of it completely.

edit: I'm done with this thread as I've said everything I wanted, and like always my intention is perhaps a hard hitting if it need be but truthful and helpful comment in the long run.
Click to expand...




This is the critique section not the blunt criticism section.
Try and learn the difference.
 
Last edited:
It has a nice atmosphere if you ask me. It is dark but not all pictures have to be perfect representations of reality. Some of the critique has been exceptionally harsh, there’s more than one way to take and process photos and it would be boring if we all did it the same way.
 
Lovely shot, I'd be very proud of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top