Dealing with dull skies

WestEndFoto

Vtc2002, I have been following this all week while in Denver on business so not really able to respond in a way the discussion deserves. One thing I will say though is your blue cloud comment strikes a strong chord as I actually struggled on that. I am going to give this more time in the next couple of days. Touch wood the five week old does not scuttle that plan.

donaldejose

Vtc2002 and WestEndFoto: The discussion is great and thought provoking; just the type of thing I like to see on Nikon Rumors: some thoughtful stylistic substance and not all rumor or equipment evaluations. Beauty comes in many forms and many colors or even black and white. Ken Rockwell does saturate his colors too much in my opinion; especially his skin tones. Back in the "olden days" when shooting Kodachrome 25 I often underexposed about one third stop to increase saturation because I like deep colors: a bit more than really was there. Here are two examples of increasing saturation to achieve the colors I like: do you think it is too much?



By the way, this was shot during a snowstorm on a gray overcast day. No blue sky here.
I don't think Jeff over-saturates his colors; but that is all a matter of personal taste. Today I see washed out colors and flare used a lot which I don't like. When a scenic is shot "normal" it often seems "flat" to me. As to altering reality, consider the common blurred flowing water shot with a long shutter speed. We don't see that with our eye but it can be a beautiful effect in the photo. Here are three examples of changing a photograph into the effect of an oil painting: do you think that is too much"






Here is an example of using some techniques to alter reality: I think doing this is fine as long as the result is beautiful to your eye just as Vincent Van Gogh altered reality to paint what he "saw." Do you think this is going too far?


msmoto: I remember the old Kodak Daylight Exposure Dial in which the terms Hazy Sun or Cloudy Bright were used to designate the optimal daylight conditions for outdoor portraiture. It is easier for us now to simply adjust our white balance to shoot in open shade than it was to reduce the blue of open shade with screw on filters for each lens.

WestEndFoto

Good examples Donaldjose.

Let's consider two extreme examples of photography.

Photojournalism - the photography needs to be accurate. I am not sure any editing is permissible. Perhaps adjusting contrast, dodging and burning? There is no room for creativity here.

Abstract - the photography rarely bears any resemblance to reality.

I suspect that your above edits are not permissible under Photojournalism guidelines, but are not processed a fraction of what they would be if it was abstract.

So at some point editing becomes acceptable. Let's assume it is acceptable. How much is acceptable? I don't believe that it is my place to say what is acceptable. All I can say is whether I like it or not. The entire process of creating an image is a series of "Creative Decisions". The only critique that I can offer is (1) what could be changed for ME to like it more and (2) if I know what your intention was, I can suggest that if you did something different, you might better achieve your intention.

I am not at peace with all of my creative decisions. Not to say that it is causing me grief. But I know that over time, my preference are going to change and many of those preferences will change because my technical skill improved or I received feedback that I valued and integrated into my technique.

Donaldjose, I like all of your images. The first two images I think are very similar to what I would produce on my own. Would I have produced the images the same way? Perhaps not. But even so I might like your image better. The only thing that bothers me a little is that I think the background in the flower pot is too red given the red flowers. I might have chosen a different background or different flowers. But heck, ten other people might say that they love the image for the very reason that it bothers me. Who am I to say that I am right and they are wrong?

WestEndFoto

I would like to add that I am taking VTC's comments very seriously. Not because I believe that I am shooting "wrong" but because he is prompting me to consider my own esthetic decision making and what makes a great image.

donaldejose

Some time ago I became a bit "bored" by an Ansel Adams type technically proficient black and white or color image. I wanted more "pop" and more dramatic color. Thus, I have been experimenting with using the camera and post-processing in a different way. Surely, my images are not to everyone's taste. That's ok with me. I produce these images to please my eye and own sense of creative outlet.

As to photo number five above: I wouldn't change the color of the wall. The dark red wall with the gold mirror frame makes the photo elegant. But I would change the flower pot to gold and add some cream and blue flowers up top to create more contrast with the wall. I think those changes would make a better image. But that was too much work so I shot it as it was.

heartyfisher

Nice continuing discussions guys ...

Just wanted to share this pic.. in which I applied some of what was discussed here.

spraynpray

Too blue on WB hearty. It's made the greens muddy and the tree trunks white.

heartyfisher

spraynpray said:

Too blue on WB hearty. It's made the greens muddy and the tree trunks white.

Actually, I masked the trees.. so they are what you see... in fact it was the white trunks that caught my attention in the first place. They are mangrove so the colours are a bit dull. I have actually boosted saturation a bit already.

spraynpray

Sorry, I'm watching the f1 so made a mistake! I meant there is a blue tint to the tree trunks.

vtc2002

The mistake that I see a lot of photographer make in my opinion is not knowing when to properly use post processing tools or not understanding what the client is looking for in the photo an deliver something unacceptable (the client can be yourself). The following photos are an example of this.
The first photo was sent to me when I was contacted about doing a portrait job. The client did not like look, felt that it was over processed and the colors were wrong. The photo was taken by a professional photographer with a Phase One camera and had an elaborate lighting setup. The agent asked for my thoughts and if I would be willing to do a session with them. I provided my comments and agreed to do portrait shoot for them.



We arrived a day before the session and spent most of the day and pretty late into the night setting up for the session. I paid a couple of people from off the street to come in and pose so that we could make sure we had the right lighting setup, background and composition. The next day they came in and we spent about 10minutes talking about the setup and what they wanted to achieve. We positioned them and I took no more than 20 shots with a DSLR and two shots with a medium format 6 X 7 camera. We showed them the digital images that had been uploaded to a computer. The only post processing that was added to the digital image was to for the lenses profile. The image that they chose the clarity, vibrance and saturation values were increased to 10, 12 and 10. Several spots were removed and that was it. They liked the image below and we were done. It took less than 30 minutes to shoot and review the images. I sent them the digital files, film negative, contact sheet prints of the two images.




Taking the time to get all of the details out of the way before I shot allowed us to listen to the client and get the image that they wanted. If you look at the two images the composition almost identical. The real difference is in the make up, lighting and the post processing.

I am a photographer with average skills. Through years of experience I feel that I know when the image I have taken is good and should be left alone. I feel that I also know when I can pull information out of the RAW file or the negative to enhance the image with out destroying the overall look and feel that I had visualized. This was the point of my original post to Jeff that knowing when and how much to post process should be a thoughtful and deliberate process.
In the example above the focus was on the initial setup and I do this with most of the portraits that I take. For landscapes I spend a lot of time scouting and researching areas to shoot. If I see something that has good compositional elements I will visit the location multiple times under different lighting situations. Some times I have my camera and sometimes I do not. Going out my camera forces me to think about the composition and light and not about get a shot. I also think about what camera and lens would be best for a particular image. This has worked for me but may or may not work for someone else. I do believe I am a better photographer by being diligent in preparing to take an image and by having a repeatable process that I follow than if I did not use them.

9viii

If I ever have a dull looking picture usually just compressing the histogram to fit the 8 bit colour space makes a huge difference, remember that your camera takes images with a lot more fidelity than your monitor can reproduce (unless you have a 10 bit workflow, but that doesn't do anyone else any good).
If the computer is trying to fit the entire photo into the upper shades then it looks washed out.

WestEndFoto

Nice image Heartyfisher. The clouds might be too blue, which is exactly what I would do. I am going to need to play around with that.

I have put many of my thoughts about post-processing using Lightroom into this thread.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4984/post-production-in-lightroom-for-landscapes#latest

WestEndFoto

VTC2002, I love both images, in different ways.

With portraits basically I very minimally post process with my time spent on eyes, skin, lips etc. etc. I may warm the image up a bit. I tend to process less on the skin. I use the guassian blur in Photoshop typically, but next I am going to learn frequency separation and then I am going to experiment by limiting all changes to skin to dodging and burning. You will often see this technique in cosmetic shots and it take about 8 hours to do a face.

When it comes to clothes, accessories, hair and backgrounds, I will often let my creative tendencies run wild.

Here is an image where that incorporates all of the elements that I have just described. In addition to work on the models face, I have also significantly modified the background by pumping saturation to the max and burning the lights to further increase saturation and bring out some detail.

donaldejose

vtc2002: good examples for our discussion. To me that first image is far too gimmicky. I wouldn't be happy with it either. Here is a portrait I did. My preference for saturated colors and non-washed out skin tones is more like that of WestEndPhoto's.



Even with animals I saturate the colors:



Of course, I could back off and use a different color palate if that is what the client wanted.

heartyfisher

spraynpray said:

Sorry, I'm watching the f1 so made a mistake! I meant there is a blue tint to the tree trunks.

You are right... I think its probably bec it was a "cloudy dull day" and there was a blue tint everywhere... I will keep that in mind next time :-) Thanks.

Msmoto

Thanks Donald

donaldejose

Something else about cloudy overcast days. When I want to do an interior without blowing out the view outside through the windows, I wait for an overcast day. Such a day reduces the contrast of the light coming through the windows, spreads that light around the room better, and allows me to show some greenery through the window. Thus, I think the best day for interiors is a cloudy day. You have to be careful not to expose for the interior but rather to let the interior fall into a bit of a shadow so you don't blow out the window. You can bring back the shadowy interior in post processing. Bad day outside can made for a good day inside.

Ironheart

@donaldejose Or use flash for the interior to equalize the outside exposure. But you are correct that bad day outside=good day inside. Especially no harsh shadows.

donaldejose

Yes, forgot to mention. I often also do use flash and turn on the interior lights, trying to balance everything without harsh shadows from the window light. It is easier to balance on a cloudy bright overcast day. If you get the flash right you don't have to bring up the shadows. My favorite indoor flash recently has been this magmod magsphere. //magnetmod.com/shop/magsphere/ I like how I can just pop it on when needed and it spreads light around a room nicelty when pointed towards the ceiling, which is usually how I use it, while still producing a catchlight in the eyes.

spraynpray

WestEndFoto said:

I would like to add that I am taking VTC's comments very seriously. Not because I believe that I am shooting "wrong" but because he is prompting me to consider my own esthetic decision making and what makes a great image.

Sorry Jeff, but in my opinion your shots can look "wrong". Here is a good example of what I mean by "don't turn everything up to 11" Jeff, this latest PAD image of yours has had the saturation set so high that you have lost all subtle detail in the image. The blues and pinks are just solid blocks of colour.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/26131854972/sizes/k/

To be honest with you and seeing the gear you have, you could be taking advantage of it's great potential not editing the output from it in such a way it looks worse than a good shot out of a D100. I really can't see any artistic interpretation in this either. If you are trying for an individual impressionist look, it isn't to be found in the blanket saturation slider IMHO.

Today's PAD image has very obvious halos on the horizon.

I don't want to seem harsh, but with the travelling you do and the gear you've got, you have the means and the opportunities to produce stunning images once you progress beyond your current editing level. Maybe the answer lies in looking at lots of other images and trying for a similar look - you may not get it, but you may end up somewhere better.

I mean no offence, only constructive criticism.

Msmoto

Interesting discussion....as for me, I way over post process almost everything I shoot currently as I do not have clients to please.

But, when working with clients...like over 50 years ago...wow, the level of communication was in most cases quite lengthy. I usually knew almost exactly what was being sought, whether shooting stuff for high end chemical companies (Location shots with huge budgets) or a large financial institution (people shots), but again with large budgets. I was working with two art directors, the primary client, my sales rep, model director and of course my assistants in the studio.

This resulted in being able to arrive at a satisfactory result on the first session in 90% of shoots. But, of course, with film we had to have things go right out of the box as we did not have computers. The retouching on dye transfer prints was possible and was done after the client's agency had the final print.

My post processing today is in general to obtain a "snapshot" appearance which does not appear post processed. But if one with knowledge looks at the shadow detail in my photos, it is usually quite apparent. In shooting race cars, etc., I will also drop out the light and saturation of the background, make the wheels brighten up somewhat and attempt to bring the car into a studio look, all with out this being apparent in the final.

So, I guess I like dull skies. But, here is one shot in bright sunshine, yet "over processed" so as to appear well lighted. Of note, this store was closed and for sale.



Best viewed here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/25636474303/sizes/o/

heartyfisher

@Msmoto :-) Awesomely over processed ! shows your character as in how much you love cars and the ol'shop !

(off topic) : Model director? You can get one of those? where do you get one?

spraynpray

I would beg to differ Tommy. Heavily processed yes, over processed, no.

heartyfisher

:-) dunno I kind of liked my scary mermaid .. ;-)

WestEndFoto

spraynpray said:

WestEndFoto said:

I would like to add that I am taking VTC's comments very seriously. Not because I believe that I am shooting "wrong" but because he is prompting me to consider my own esthetic decision making and what makes a great image.

Sorry Jeff, but in my opinion your shots can look "wrong". Here is a good example of what I mean by "don't turn everything up to 11" Jeff, this latest PAD image of yours has had the saturation set so high that you have lost all subtle detail in the image. The blues and pinks are just solid blocks of colour.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/26131854972/sizes/k/

To be honest with you and seeing the gear you have, you could be taking advantage of it's great potential not editing the output from it in such a way it looks worse than a good shot out of a D100. I really can't see any artistic interpretation in this either. If you are trying for an individual impressionist look, it isn't to be found in the blanket saturation slider IMHO.

Today's PAD image has very obvious halos on the horizon.

I don't want to seem harsh, but with the travelling you do and the gear you've got, you have the means and the opportunities to produce stunning images once you progress beyond your current editing level. Maybe the answer lies in looking at lots of other images and trying for a similar look - you may not get it, but you may end up somewhere better.

I mean no offence, only constructive criticism.

Thanks for the feedback Spraynpray. No offense taken.

I feel that this is where your constructive criticism is "wrong".

My "solid blocks of colour" is the result of a creative decision and I would not have it any other way with this image. My objective is to produce images that I like, of course realizing that many would not like it. On that basis you are not qualified to judge a creative decision. You are only qualified to judge whether I made the right technical choices in achieving my creative objective.

And I would note that many do like my images - in this case 447 and counting. Now those are "internet faves" and I take those with a huge grain of salt, but it should give you pause. While this is by no stretch my post popular image, neither is it a dud.

I hope you are not making these sorts of judgements with the young people in your camera club. You run the risk of snuffing out their creativity before it has a chance to flower. As neither you nor anybody are qualified to judge a creative decision the most you can say is "not my cup of tea". Anything more is arrogant. For all you know there are only five people on the planet with the esthetic taste that the artist is speaking to and the artist is fully aware of it.

I can only imagine what Monet or Picasso went through.

I also find it interesting that you would pick an image to critique for excessive post processing that is also so intentionally disconnected from reality. You are one step from critiquing abstract art for not being real.

I think it would be more useful if you critiqued the image in my Lightroom post, where the creative intention was "reality with a bit of pop". Knowing the objective of those technical and creative decisions, you have a basis of making a judgement. I would be pleased to have a discussion about the image on that basis. You are also welcome to select some of the studio portraits that I have made in the last year, where the creative intention is also "reality with a slight bit of pop" and my "style" is most consistent with what it is "right now". I am currently having an internal debate on what I should do with some of the backgrounds on some of those images regarding post processing. "Marie in the Night" is a good example of that.

And I do take your feedback constructively and positively. You should know that I will re-evaluate my use of global and local adjustments (many were local in the image you selected by the way). But I have done this many times with an image like that and often end up at the same spot. I often do this not because I want to make the image "more acceptable to others" but because I want to evaluate whether my creative decision is the same today as it was yesterday.

My concern is that many people may not have the self confidence to actually take your feedback in a way that will constructively allow them to develop their own creative style.