Options
Yet another inspirational Thrilling Wonder daily blog
David_S85
Administrators Posts: 13,182 moderator
This time with Wonders of the Chinese Landscape. Most all are over-saturated, but otherwise :wow (Not dial-up friendly)
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
0
Comments
How would you take a photo like these and add that much saturation, but make it still look real?
Z
Perhaps I should have put this in Technique, but if you see these Chinese photos first, you'll know what I am talking about.
ZZ
Something just aint right with that kid in the tub shot
Skippy (Australia) - Moderator of "HOLY MACRO" and "OTHER COOL SHOTS"
ALBUM http://ozzieskip.smugmug.com/
:skippy Everyone has the right to be stupid, but some people just abuse the privilege :dgrin
I looked at it 4 times and still don't get it.
Some great shots, but the over saturation got to me....
www.tippiepics.com
Thanks for the pointer!
Many of these images have incredible light and therefor do not need the saturation. What I find unnecessory is the exagerated contrast, as most of the images are well lit in the first place. Never the less, this group of images is interesting, as I see photography moving this way. I have listened to thousands of art directors over the years attemt to explain what kind of shot they wanted and they always used many adjectives like, spectacular, grand, sophisticated, colorful, unique and my favorite most recently, is when one very well respected art director refered to a painting as an example. I believe a new trend in photography has begun. This trend is similar to the surrealist movement taking photography away from its roots of realism.
Surrealism
(Launched in 1924 by a manifesto of André Breton and having a strong political content, the movement grew out of symbolism and Dada and was strongly influenced by Sigmund Freud. In the visual arts its most notable exponents were André Masson, Jean Arp, Joan Miró, René Magritte, Salvador Dali, Max Ernst, Man Ray, and Luis Buñuel.)
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Marc, great post.
Guys, have you seen Leping's Shots?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
having always been accused of oversaturation whenever I do color, thanks!-
and
'it's not what it is, it's how it feels'
-daniel giordan
Thanks for pointing us to the Leping site - very inspirational photography.
Great point, thanks!
The other links (Weird tanks and Equillibriums) are also cool!
You've left me a little in left field with your comments about the trend toward surrealism in photography. Do you mean doing post work to image for some surreal effect? If so, I understand. But surely you don't mean what Leping is doing or, before him Shinzo Maeda. What these 2 artists do with nature could turn me into a bowl carrying monk if that's what it took to capture the natural world as they see it.
My own spotty attempts in this genre include this photo of 2 buzzards in Petit Jean State Park, AR, one misty morning.
Anyway, if large photographic exhibits of Campbells soup cans become all the rage then we'll all just keep producing real art that commuicates to real people.
Rory Tate
Canadian, Okla.
Hi Rory, love your picture BTW. And ya, Marc's comment kind of came out of left field at me too. I'm not real big on definitions and so strict adherence to "Surrealism" by definition doesn't mean much to me, but Why should we allow our photography to be so confined and limited by it's own definition just because it's roots are in realism? I encounter this quite a bit among photographers and, personally, it bothers me. I think we stiffle our own creativity by allowing the narrow definitions of "photography" to dictate to us what we can or cannot do.
Personally, I'm becoming somewhat bored with my photography always being an accurate document of what was in front of my lens. And lately I've been experimenting with several different ideas to make something creative. Haven't posted much here because there doesn't seem to be a catagory for what we call "Photo Art".
Bob
Speaking of surreal! I just drove through Nevada accross HWY 50 then down 93, wow what a surreal place.
Ok, let me explain in brief first, then take a few additional words.
It is my observation that landscape photography is looking more surreal than it did 18 years ago when I began, Leping is a perfect example! However, I did not say and do not believe it is a bad thing.
I also believe that post work should be done so that no one notices.
As we all know there is a fine line in photography between what is acceptable and what is not. The catch is that each of us draws that line in a different place. That is why we as photographers/artist can't base our work on the opinions of others all the time. However, as a professional landscape photographer I constantly view what is being published and it is my observation that more surreal types of images are expected by art buyers and publishers than 18 years ago when I began. It is not my opinion, which was mistakenly conveyed, that surreal images are not photographic or are in some way bad. On the contrary, I find it exciting!
As for the saturation, I must state that, all monitors see the colors slightly differently and can lead to conflicting results over the internet. However, assuming the colors were indeed saturated from what was real is irrelevant to the quality of the image. I have heard countless times conflicting opinions of my work. What I have come to trust over the years is my opinion of my work. If I did not then I would be running in circles. I mentioned above that we should not base our work on the opinions of others all the time. So when do we? I believe we need to get as many opinions of our work as possible and learn as much as possible about both the good and the bad. In other words understand the ins and outs, then we can form our own opinions with experience.
My opinion of several of the images in the blog is that too much contrast has been added to them making them appear over-saturated. That does not mean I don't like them! However, what I believe makes work/images more sophisticated, yes better, is less obvious post editing. That is the trick, and yes I am still learning myself.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Hi Marc, thankyou for that. Both Rory and I did seem to misunderstand you to some extent. As far as who's opinion we should consider, I value the opinion of the person who will open his wallet and pay for my work i.e. my clients.
Bob
PS- check for a PM
Thank you for your considered reply. Bob's "wallet" philosophy closely reflects my own ideas about the quality of art, its ability to communicate and be exchanged for something valuable, hopefully money
However, my reaction was prompted more from an historical contretemps in the form of the early 19th century French Academie des beaux-arts and their relentless suppression and invalidation of the early impressionists for failing to paint only those subjects they thought "proper", and in the painting styles set forth by the Academie. That was a condition that seems to constantly reoccur at different times, in different countries, with varying degrees of ferocity.
One can criticize a condition, but to truly change it, one can only encourage and support what one considers worthy, and leave the criticizm to those who can't.
I think you and Andy and the rest of the folks here to that admirably.
Rory Tate
Canadian, Okla.
Good Photo btw...
Over saturation of the blogs photos ....to me on my Monitor they did not seem over saturated, as Marc posted probably over contrasted....However, I turned to Fuji film, what seems like and eon ago, so that my portrait, wedding and Landscape work would have more Punch.....some of the old timer photogs here said my work wasway over saturated and too contrasty, but as Bob stated...these were not the ones paying for my services....The actual clients loved them.....
I just figured the photog was trying to get that Fuji Film punch to his photos or was trying to get what his MINDS EYE said it saw......sometimes that 3rd eye and really confuse things for the artist in all of us.
Bob
I must admit, that happens for the vast majority of professionals, myself included. However, I have found it a great challenge to create others visions through my craft of photography, meaning commercial assignments. WOW it is getting wordy here
Regarding fine art sales, not commercial assignments, the client and their wallet, here is what I have begun to understand as unfortunate. Art as you know it is given a perceived value. That means that if it is not represented well, marketed well, exhibited well and most importantly received well by critics and or gelleries it usually never makes the light of day. Furthermore if it does make the light of day the value is not what it ought to be, and there is the unfortunate part. In the long run the largest wallets are usually overly influenced by the critics.
Cheers
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Marc,
I find it interesting that artists ( painters) were using lenses and camera obscuras to outline their images quickly over 500 years ago. David Hockney's book "Secret Knowledge - Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters" and Phillip Steadman's "Vermeer's Camera" both describe this usage of lenses to outline images on canvas in great lifelike detail. SOME art lovers were very upset to think that great painters used lenses to begin their image and then completed them with brushes and oils. I always marvelled at the precision of some images, but did not imagine they were initailly captured in a "camera", but the evidence is rather compelling.
Digital photography has now given photographers the means to do something very similar to what the old masters did centuries ago. We capture an image in a camera obscura digitally, and then place it on our palette in Photoshop and create the final image there. Vincent Versace's "Welcome to Oz" is a description of exactly this process, capture an image, and then use it as a foundation for the image finally rendered in Photoshop.
Darkroom processing of images in nothing new, but darkroom rats never had the level of precision and control now available to serious students of the art. Photography and painting seem to be moving closer and closer to each other, until it is hard to seperate them as distinct fields of endeavour. I think this is kind of what you are referring to in your comment about surrealism.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Jim
Indeed! Also the one question which always must be answered is, for what is the image being used for. If Art then all is well. However, if editorial, where is the validity of subject matter if an artist "goes creative" on a picture in photoshop. I understand most don't have to answer that question, but I do, and I am noticing more surreal type images appear in magazines where years ago my head would be lopped off for such a alteration of reality. Therefor, understanding the method of creating art from pictures is a wonderful medium, I believe what is fascinating is that this surreal type of imagery is being accepted as reality not as art for which it is!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Now I understand more clearly - altering images with post processing is accepted as routine in the fine art world, but has, until more recently, NOT been accepted by editors in magazines and newspapers where there is some expectation that the image is a representation of fact.
You are saying that you see this separation as becoming less discrete, and that the viewers, readers, editors, are not noticing, commenting on, or shocked by this gradual progression of change. Interesting. Surreal, even.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Here is my example which I shot at a wildlife refuge in Nevada on my most recent trek to Utah. The first image is the image as it came out of the camera.
The second is what I did in Photoshop in about 5 min.
I never moved any pixels or subject matter therefore all is real. However, my edits were only in contrast and color. I did Gaussian blur sections which BTW is really effecting contrast between pixels. Now If I submitted the two images to a number of magazines I am most positive the enhanced one would be accepted in fact preferred. The truth is it looked nothing like the second image. Therefore the editorial magazine will publish what ever looks good with little concern for the integrity of the actual place and time. I do not know the answer to this most interesting fact, but only bring it to the attention of photographers. In the depths of my soul I still search for the incredible reality, which so unusual, appears to most surreal!
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
*hijack*
I notice this trend elsewhere. Standards that were once put in place "for our own good" are eroded, and the public is indifferent, even embraces the change. For example, blogs being used as substitutes for professional news outlets, with nary a concern for fact-checking or legitimacy.
*end hijack*
I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that it slips into photography, especially given the new tools available.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Chapter 19 of Stephen Johnson's "On Digital Photography" is an extended discussion of Imaging Ethics in the Digital Age.
Of course, altering photos has been done for over a century, even in the days of glass plates and mercury fumes, so perhaps we should not be surprised. His book is well worth reading.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I often think I have captured a great image in the viewfinder or LCD, but when I get it home on a monitor, I find it much less compelling.
On the other hand, sometimes I just fire a quick grab shot and later when I get it on a monitor find that it is better than the other frames from the whole shoot. The light can change very quickly.
Like I said earlier, our camera obscuras are now portable, easy to carry about, and require batteries. But the image really comes later sitting at the monitor, as we use the tools available to begin to create what we saw in our minds eye at the time.
Of course, when we shot Kodachrome, the curves and saturation were already done for us by the technicians at Rochester.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I really appreciate the time you took to get your viewpoints understood. Now I get it! And I do agree with you on the subject of the slow errosion of integrity in the work. For myself, my dad and uncles were all well known newspaper reporters of the old school; treat an inaccuracy with your life - or at least your job. Then there was that reporter/photographer for the New York Times (?) who was instantly fired for "slightly" altering a photo of a skirmish involving civilians in Iraq, a year or so ago. I cheered loudly but I guess that wouldn't happen today. I don't know.
Many thanks.
Rory Tate
Canadian, Okla.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I think he has another talent he hasn't talked about: the ability to visualize what a photo can be, even if it's not what his camera captured. I see Andy do the same thing: take a somewhat plain photo and in post, infuse it with life.
Yes, it's "cheating." However, it's also a talent to see not what is, but what could be, and to transform the image in a tasteful, aesthetically pleasing manner. It's a skill I admire and envy.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Rory Tate
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au