Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
Thread started 17 Sep 2013 (Tuesday) 18:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do the amazing landscapes we see exist??

 
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4080
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Sep 18, 2013 21:25 |  #46

The funny thing is my HDR landscapes look more realistic than my filtered ones. ;) :oops:


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
blogs
Member
229 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Sep 18, 2013 21:29 |  #47

krb wrote in post #16306957 (external link)
I'm saying that your repeated attempts to establish a connection between the amount of post-processing and the quality of the final work does an excellent job of showing how little you know about the subject. Of demonstrating how narrow-minded your approach is to the craft.

Furthermore, your repeated dismissal of people as "newbs" and the presumption that you can dictate to others what is good or bad despite having done nothing to establish any actual credentials tells me everything I need to know (and nothing positive) about your personality.

lol and I care what some random nobody who I will never meet and lives on the otherside of the world thinks?? bwhahahahahahbw!


And your lack of comprehending what I am saying tells me everything I need to know about your personality ;) You are either a troll, or someone who is ignorant to the types of pictures Im refering to that ocasssionaly pop up where a someone discovers the wonders of lightroom and push the sliders to the max to make the end result just look rediculous. This is becoming more and more common, almost a trend now though...But hey its art and everything is subjective huh, so we should never criticise or critique anyones work because beuaty is in the eye of the beholder/thread.

Of course maybe it could just be that I have a narrow minded view of the 'craft' and these photos are sensational pieces of artwork lol...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4080
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Sep 18, 2013 21:32 |  #48

blogs wrote in post #16307997 (external link)
lol and I care what some random nobody who I will never meet and lives on the otherside of the world thinks?? bwhahahahahahbw!

You seem to care enough about what other "random nobodies" think to expend a good deal of energy trying to convert people to your way of thinking. If you didn't care what others think, why engage in opinionated debate? :confused:


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blogs
Member
229 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Sep 18, 2013 21:48 |  #49

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16308008 (external link)
You seem to care enough about what other "random nobodies" think to expend a good deal of energy trying to convert people to your way of thinking. If you didn't care what others think, why engage in opinionated debate? :confused:

Why would you think Im trying to covert anyone? Im partaking in a discussion, one it appears is only allowed to be onesided otherwise the herd mentality come out and personally attack.... great stuff..

You take or leave my opinion, it is sad though that most of the responses to my observations have become personal...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,800 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Likes: 835
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Sep 18, 2013 23:13 as a reply to  @ blogs's post |  #50

Funny how we've got into this 'realistic' thing with digital. Film never looked 'realistic' IMO, and you can't capture the 'realism' of a landscape on a 2D medium with limited DR.

Saturation is another. Honestly I think a lot of sunrises/sunsets are actually way more saturated colors in reality than a print or computer screen will handle, especially the reds.

Also, have you even noticed how on video lower contrast and saturation than a still look better, even though it may be even further from reality.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weka2000
Is that a 300mm in your pocket?
Avatar
20,866 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 201
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Auckland
     
Sep 19, 2013 00:58 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #51

any way gentlemen back to topic ..........

Just reading a page on sky replacement to add impact, also dodge and burning techniques.

We are spoilt for how many ways we can PP compared to film


https://500px.com/tony​searle/galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Sep 19, 2013 01:10 |  #52

weka2000 wrote in post #16308338 (external link)
Just reading a page on sky replacement to add impact, also dodge and burning techniques.

A page from the late 1800s, perhaps? :)


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jefzor
Senior Member
788 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 24
Joined Jul 2013
     
Sep 19, 2013 01:12 |  #53

People can do with their own photos whatever the hell they want. (as long as they're not using them as scientific evidence or something)
Of course you're entitled to your opinion of it being fake or ugly.

But let's tone down the hostilities a notch, this isn't dpreview.


www.jefpauwels.be (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
Sep 19, 2013 01:18 |  #54

jefzor wrote in post #16308366 (external link)
People can do with their own photos whatever the hell they want. (as long as they're not using them as scientific evidence or something)
Of course you're entitled to your opinion of it being fake or ugly.

But let's tone down the hostilities a notch, this isn't dpreview.

It is becoming that....This is just the recent thread on this board where the topic gets completely hi jacked and personal attacks begin.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark0159
I say stupid things all the time
Avatar
12,899 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 263
Joined Mar 2003
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
     
Sep 19, 2013 02:39 |  #55

I think that people need to get rid of the idea that some how photography is capturing truth. It just captures what the photographer wants to capture. Even with no editing a lie is being told. It's a lie that fits within the box of the camera frame. it's a simple lie, a easy lie but it's one people accept even if they are not a photographer.

We aren't capturing a moment of beauty we are just capturing a moment that is being distored by a man made machine that does what it's told but never of what is asked of it. If you want to capture the real scene then put down that camera and simply just watch it with your own eyes.

So the landscapes do exist but not as they really are. If we try and capture the sunset with a camera, the camera will distort the colours and the frame we choose wont capture everything we see. But we do capture that split second and we can turn that in something that is close to a truth and close to what we would like to see. That's the best and all we can do.

The question has been answered but the answer is different for everyone.


Mark
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/52782633@N04 (external link)
Canon EOS 6D | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD | Canon Speedlite 550EX -|- Film | Canon EOS 3 | Olympus OM2 | Zuiko 35mm f2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Sep 19, 2013 03:10 |  #56

blogs wrote in post #16305014 (external link)
There has been a bone of centention for me for quite a while. Sooooooo many photos posted on here are clearly over processed and just look fake. I mean really, the colours they portray just dont occur in nature. But then you have people defending endless degrees of manipulation due to it being 'art'.I MHO many 'sunset' pics could have been taken in the middle of the day, just adjust the sliders to bring out the pinks and purples and bam-sunset pic....

For mine I limit post processing largely to exposure and sharpness and maybe maybe adjust the temperature ever so slightly. This way what I show is what I shot/saw and people can marvel at the true beuaty of nuture (and my hard work) rather than some sci fi photo shopped piece of garbage...oh sorry I mean 'art'..all IMHO of course ;)

But not everyone wants to do that, not everyone's goal is a perfect reproduction of the real world. The derision with which you use the word art seems to miss the point that art is about self expression. Just like a pencil or a paintbrush, a camera is simply a tool - some choose to use it to reproduce the real world closely, like photorealistic painters do, while others do something else, like more stylised painters. Photographers don't have some journalistic duty to always show truthful reproductions of the world as we see it; to be honest, I think that's a very myopic view of photography as a medium. My own educational background is in fine art, and my primary profession is an artistic one, and among my former fellow students and my peers, one trend I've noticed is that many artists who begin their education or careers obsessing over photorealism in their respective mediums often eventually tire of it and begin experimenting with increasing levels of stylisation. I think this is a natural progression for most creative people, the need to evolve and try new things, new approaches to expressing themselves.

I used to obsess over photorealism in art myself, but then I realised that there were more satisfying and creative avenues for expressing my ideas. Stylisation allows for such a broader scope. The same goes for my photography. I spend a lot of time on my colours and tonal range to produce images that I find appealing, even when that means they don't necessarily reflect reality anymore. One of the reasons I always loved black and white photography is because stripping colour from an image immediately moves it into a world of stylisation.

I'm not saying there aren't people out there over-processing images - while for some it is indeed an intentional choice, I do feel there are also many beginners who genuinely don't quite yet grasp the intricacies of post processing, for whom the experimentation is part of their learning; I personally dislike most HDR photography I've seen, finding it too over-processed for my liking, and I also see a lot of other work out there that's perhaps too saturated, too defined, etc for my own personal tastes. But hey, as with any creative medium, the results are going to be subjective.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Doc ­ Fluty
Goldmember
Avatar
1,762 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Gulfport, Ms
     
Sep 19, 2013 03:11 |  #57

uuggnn...


My Facebook Fan Page (external link) - My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gomar
Senior Member
Avatar
527 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NYC
     
Nov 18, 2013 18:22 |  #58

I just watch Burt Wolfe, or those travel shows on PBS.
I dont know how they pick their destinations, but there sure is a limit of sites to photograph on planet Earth. Perhaps it's time to explore Alpha Centauri.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Happysnapperman
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
87 posts
Joined Jul 2013
     
Nov 20, 2013 03:55 |  #59

Gomar wrote in post #16462016 (external link)
I just watch Burt Wolfe, or those travel shows on PBS.
I dont know how they pick their destinations, but there sure is a limit of sites to photograph on planet Earth. Perhaps it's time to explore Alpha Centauri.



In a way I agree about limited sites. I don't have the money to travel frequently to see iconic locations around the country and so limit my landscape work to local locations. I think if I went out and photographed the same ole same ole sites like everyone else I don't think I would be doing myself justice. I think too many spots have had the crap photographed out of them to the point that they all look the same +/- 10% difference in post processing. The amount of horse shoe bend photos I have seen that all look the same has really deterred me from even going there. I want to find new locations, perhaps local spots would be the new landscape subjects, spots that nobody sees all the time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adza77
Senior Member
652 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2010
     
Nov 20, 2013 04:23 |  #60

While I don't mind PP images that make places gorgeous - and would never want to see that taken away, one thing that I do find disappointing is that you don't know what to expect from photo's these days.

ie: I have been to some incredible sites with gorgeous colors and contrast that look that way to the observer in real life. I have also been to other places that don't, but photo's of those places make it look comparable to the former mentioned. Obviously people want their images to look as good as they possibly can, but I hate that when I look at many landscape photos now I have to wonder whether the place really looks that nice to visit (aka a true reflection), or whether it's been manipulated beyond reality (aka moved into the 'art' category).

Not that there is anything wrong with that... ;)

So to answer the OP's question - YES - I do believe there are some places that look as good to the human eye as is depicted in some of the photo's, but the chances are that the majority of what you see these days will fall into the category of being either unrealistic or beyond what the human eye will see.


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,556 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do the amazing landscapes we see exist??
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Nature & Landscapes Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Panzer90
1157 guests, 332 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.