Saturated and Contrasty

[samueli]

I recently took a short photo conscious vacation. In some areas I had some problems, but the reduced for web size images are fine and a couple of my shots I'm quite proud of. Even though I hurried through them and will need to revisit some of them in PP, I spent quite a bit of time initially PPing the images to add to my website.

Now I visit a couple of my favorite photographers sites, and look at their images, that are very dark, saturated and sometimes heavily vignetted. Granted these folks could be considered pros (as far as artist and professional can come together), and the majority use film in larger format cameras.

In contrast my images are very bright and I've only tweaked levels a little bit - sometimes adding more brightness as opposed to dark in flat images. The pictures I PP'ed look like what I saw when I captured them.

So now I feel completely down about my work. Vacation was partialy vacation and I didn't have the flexibility to wait out perfect sunrise/sunset light, and most of the images where captured way to close to high noon. I got what I got. I could push them much more then they are without ruining them, but I'd feel like I was doing something wrong.

So I guess I'm asking from an artists persepective, Do you push the images in PP a little bit more to acheive a dramatic effect or is some landscape photograpy appreciated for being captured as is? Does anyone PP a set, then come back and re-PP it later after having a chance to just view the images for awhile? <-- I think this is the road I will be on.

[blackcap]

If I take a photo in poor light then I might try and rescue it with some PP, but the success rate is very low. No harm in trying though!

[samueli]

I didn't mean bright as in ruined, just how I captured them. Bright and sunny images.

[sparker1]

I think I understand your question. I personally have gone through phases of PP tactics, at one time trying to emulate the saturated/contrasty style used by others. Frankly, it is easy to overdo it and I did. I have recently spent countless hours re-doing photos from 2001-2004 to rectify that mistake. My taste now runs toward a more natural look, although I can still appreciate the more dramatic images some produce.

[blackcap]

I didn't mean bright as in ruined, just how I captured them. Bright and sunny images.

Examples?

Chances are if you captured your photos at high noon like you say, then they are the type that I would consider need rescuing. There are exceptions of course, but generally that's the worst time of day to take landscapes.

[Roy Mathers]

It seems to me as if you're trying to get your pictures as you think they should by (ie the way the 'pros' do them) rather than the way you like them. Lots of photographers change (PP) their pictures of bright scenes into moody and dark pictures. Equally, others specialise in, and prefer, bright sunny pictures. It's up to you to decide what you like, not what you think others would like.

[samueli]

Examples?
I could probably put one up later if it's needed. None of the best images are blown out (Thanks to the in camera histogram highlight indicator), and even the lightest spots have enough data to go either way.

Chances are if you captured your photos at high noon like you say, then they are the type that I would consider need rescuing. There are exceptions of course, but generally that's the worst time of day to take landscapes.

Is that a personal or technical preference? I agree with you as well (it's one of the biggest constants in landscape photography), but a couple of my vacation images have really cool skies with shades of blue that you can't get any other time of day just as can be said with morning/evening light. Granted a majority of them have a problem in other areas due to the high sun, but there are a couple that really worked. These are the ones I question to go bright and sunny, or dark and emotional.

I'm finding that taking pictures in perfect light is next to impossible. Unless of course your all alone in life with nobody else to consider, and you spend your life in waiting for the next perfect moment. It seems that the successful artists don't have to work around traditional family or commitments because they have none, and have built their life around their work.

[samueli]

It seems to me as if you're trying to get your pictures as you think they should by (ie the way the 'pros' do them) rather than the way you like them. Lots of photographers change (PP) their pictures of bright scenes into moody and dark pictures. Equally, others specialise in, and prefer, bright sunny pictures. It's up to you to decide what you like, not what you think others would like.

I see what your saying, but which way is going captivate your audience more, Bright sunny images or dark moody almost fantasy like? I like things about both ways, although the brighter images are more realistic, the darker more ubelievable, which gives the artist some kind of super hero like quality that allows him to capture such magnificance from a scene that everyone has the same access too.

Do you know of any artists off hand that go the bright route?

[Roy Mathers]

I see what your saying, but which way is going captivate your audience more, Bright sunny images or dark moody almost fantasy like? I like things about both ways, although the brighter images are more realistic, the darker more ubelievable, which gives the artist some kind of super hero like quality that allows him to capture such magnificance from a scene that everyone has the same access too.

Do you know of any artists off hand that go the bright route?


It depends on the audience. To quote Shakespeare - 'To thine own self be true'!

[samueli]

Excellent!

[airfrogusmc]

In my opinion its important for the tone and mood to match the overall visual statement. If the images needs to bright then so be it. Only the photogrpaher can can determine that and that is usually set at the time of exposure. The texture, composition, color pallet and tone/mood should all be working with the overall statement.