Dealing with dull skies

donaldejose

"I can only imagine what Monet or Picasso went through." Sorry Jeff, I think you have used wrong examples. Although rejected at first among the art elite, Monet's work was accepted in about 20 years and he became very wealthy from selling his paintings. Picasso moved through many styles or "periods" during his life but did become world famous in his lifetime. The better example for you is Vincent Van Gogh. He painted 860 paintings and sold only one during his lifetime. People must have laughed at his work as the product of a lunatic and a waste of good paint. Today, each of his painting are worth millions.

I like what many would label an over-saturated image. Like I said, I used to increase the saturation of Kodachrome 25 (which many considered unrealistically over-saturated already) by exposing it to minus one third stop.

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.

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

blockquote>

This image?



Yes, that is a very fair comment. I please guilty to laziness, in that I could have spent much more time in Lightroom or perhaps used Photoshop and that would not be an issue. I am working on populating this site that I just created:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/travel_by_westendfoto/

I pulled that image out that I liked without thinking about it too much.

Luckily I still have the raw file (always save those) so I can work on it some more if I want to put it in a more prominent place.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

"I can only imagine what Monet or Picasso went through." Sorry Jeff, I think you have used wrong examples. Although rejected at first among the art elite, Monet's work was accepted in about 20 years and he became very wealthy from selling his paintings. Picasso moved through many styles or "periods" during his life but did become world famous in his lifetime. The better example for you is Vincent Van Gogh. He painted 860 paintings and sold only one during his lifetime. People must have laughed at his work as the product of a lunatic and a waste of good paint. Today, each of his painting are worth millions.

I like what many would label an over-saturated image. Like I said, I used to increase the saturation of Kodachrome 25 (which many considered unrealistically over-saturated already) by exposing it to minus one third stop.

Hmm.....

I picked those two as they are my favorite. They were also unconventional for their time, irrespective of whether they were recognized at the time for their talent. My intended point was that all truly creative artists are subjected to criticism about their creative decisions, which I do not believe is appropriate. Don't get me wrong. I have no issues with saying "I don't like that." "Personally, I don't like that." is better. "That is not my cup of tea." is even better. Nice and soft but direct. Dealing with that can be tiring and discouraging for a budding or even experienced artist that has not learnt to deal with it.

However, had I the benefit of your knowledge, I would have picked Van Gogh. I like that.

spraynpray

Hi Jeff,

If it was your intention to create the look that you ended up with and you are happy with it, then you should happily ignore all of my comments above.

Regarding my club members (as you mentioned the club), they all do absolutely what they want to do and when they enter their images in club comps that are judged by paid independent qualified judges, they get feedback on their image which they can choose to ignore if they wish (but they don't because that is why we all enter our images to be judged amongst our peers). When we enter images in external comps, that is different - the members images get selected by the selection committee (the members of which includes me). Re-edits are sometimes suggested if we believe there is merit in the image to justify it and if the re-edit suggestion is not taken up (we have only one guy with an ego that large), then the image would not usually (although still may) be entered. On the basis that our club has been on an upward trend in the external comps over the last 2 years and as those judges are highly qualified and experienced Premier Judges, we can't be going too far wrong. An impressionistic image does have to be special to make it into an external comp in our club as there are some hugely talented people that do great impressionist work in other clubs and regions.

heartyfisher

I also used to go to a photo club with the judging and competitions... I am not going now because I am lazy :-) Its been very positive for me to listen to all the judges comments and all the images presented. My club was very small but punches above its weight class thanks to a few very talented individuals who are willing to freely mentor and suggest possible improvements when asked like most passionate practitioners.

I had another look through @WestEndFoto's images that he linked. I must say that most are "not my cup of tea" :-) when appraised individually. However, after looking through the whole set several times. I can appreciate that there is a "style" that is unique and is still developing. There are a few images that I find to have many of the key elements of his style all together and I really like those !

So how many of us can present an image and have it be noted as your style? Not me ... not yet anyway :-)

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto
I have been following this conversation but I was traveling the past couple of days. Sorry for the late posting.
Jeff, I am in agreement with @spraynpray in his comment from 3:10AM. This was the point that I was trying to make but being perhaps a bit too indirect. If you want to be a professional photographer and get paid by clients or sell your work to others you I do not believe your current workflow and editing will work. I think this is the point that @Msmoto is trying to make as well. Most of my clients have very clear ideas of what they want and it is my job to fulfill them and they do not like you taking creative liberties. I get a lot of work from agents to because another photographer failed to listen to their client. If you are happy with the work you are producing then keep doing what you are doing. Which ever direction you take, you will miss out on a great opportunity to grow your skills if you do not listen and take constructive (even non constructive) criticism or by studying the works of others. @Spraynpray is right when you start to destroy the image quality what is the point, you should be adding value not taking away from it. I think you can add beauty to your images without degrading the image quality.

I have had the opportunity to work with a lot of photographers (including some great photographers) that offered advice and suggestions to improve my skills and would have been stupid to have not taken their advice, some things I tried and liked and some did not work for me. My work has bits and pieces from all of them from time to time. Danny Clinch is a good example of someone that I think you could learn from concerning portrait work. His work is simple but powerful. He has taken chances and is creative without getting to far from being technically sound. His compositions have just the right elements to draw you into the subject. The portrait of Marie that you have on the PAD is an example of where I personally think you went a bit too far. Adding the elements in the background are really nice bokeh elements but it distracts from your model. Your eyes are immediately drawn to the bright bokeh elements and then to Marie. Marie is a beautiful model and a portrait with her with and very simple background would have been killer. This is the type of work Danny does that has made him so successful is that he adds just enough to compliment the main subject without distracting the viewer from it. Some times simple gets you more bang. The portraits that I posted in this thread are good examples. The first photo the client hated it, they thought the light and background was distracting, they hated the makeup (and hair styling) and that they appeared to be too far away. The second image probably has more lights than the first image but they were used to enhance the subjects without given the affect of being blasted by lights.

I do find some of comments a bit confusing. You state that your "My objective is to produce images that I like, of course realizing that many would not like it." But you challenge @Spraynpray qualifications when he critiques your PAD posting and then reference the likes that you have for that photo on Flickr. It's like you give the people that liked photo more credit than @Spraynpray when you don't know why they liked your work. Whether you like it or not the people on Flickr are judging you. Every time they click to like or chose to not like one of your photos they are judging your work. Many have far less skills to judge a photo than most of those present on this site. I am not trying to be harsh or critical, you are amongst your friends here and simply offering to assistance and help.

I do not agree with your comment about Monet or Picasso went through. Like most artist (or at least the ones I know) I doubt they cared the least bit about what the critiques thought of their work. I am pretty sure Ansel Adams did not cared very much either. His business card had his name then underneath his name was Environmentalists then Photographer. I think he was just as proud of his environmental work as he was of his photography, even though his photography lead to a lot of environmental awareness.

I initially responded to your post because I was concerned that someone new to photography or new to post processing might take your methodology as standard and not knowing that your intent of adding artistic license to your images might be misguided. I have seen this happen a lot more than you might think. I occasionally get out to Seattle and would enjoy meeting you and discussing this or any other topic over lunch or diner.

donaldejose

All interesting. Thanks to everyone who took the time to post.

WestEndFoto

Spraynpray, I was a little hard on you earlier, and I regret that.

I am involved in three clubs and a certificate photography program (18 courses and a portfolio is required to graduate). One thing I notice in the certificate program is that there is a clear distinction between a technical decision and a creative decision. Technical decisions are addressed directly, but the instructors are very careful to understand what the creative objective of the student is before they go there. And then the advice is directed at how to technically achieve the creative objective.

The clubs are a little different. As they are amateur clubs (but all members of capa), this distinction is not clearly understood. However, the club that seems to get that even if they can't articulate it has a thriving membership. The other two are small (one is heavy on professionals) and often judge creative decisions harshly. The feedback I have received from people that have tried out those clubs and often ended up at the larger club supports that.

Frankly I have never entered a contest outside of the club or participated in any of the print competitions. For whatever reason, those don't motivate me. However, I do enjoy the discussion that goes on inside the club including photo submissions - one with a formal ranking system.

WestEndFoto

Heartyfisher, I appreciated your comments. Besides Donaldjose, you are the first person that seems to have made an effort in trying to determine what my creative intention is. And you are right, there is a style but it is unformed and unfocussed. If you were in Vancouver I would invite you over for wine and talk photography.

donaldejose

I looked up Danny Clinch's work and really don't like it at all. http://www.dannyclinch.com/ Maybe there is something wrong with me? I just don't find his work visually appealing to my sense of what is beautiful or attractive. Am I stupid for admitting those are my feelings? Sure he captures mood and and character while he eliminates "distracting" background elements but the images remind me more of street photography which I do not find pretty. I don't want to see "grit" in my art. I want to see beauty or something pleasant that makes me feel good. If he was hired to do a wedding I wonder what he would produce? Would the bride be happy with how beautiful she looks? It seems to me even "film noir" images were more beautiful in their dramatic and stark black and white than his images.

WestEndFoto

VTC2002, I am wondering about your comment, "If you want to be a professional photographer and get paid by clients or sell your work to others you I do not believe your current workflow and editing will work".

Why do you imagine that I might want to be a professional or sell my work?

Photographers are paid a pittance, low six figures at the very best - unless you are fabulously successful. If I was a professional photographer I could neither afford the gear I want nor the travel I partake in. I would be hiring models that others like instead of hiring models that I like. I would be whoring myself to other people's creative decisions, not my own. My only regret is that I work 50-60 hours a week to support my hobby and family and can't do photography all of the time. But that is OK because I actually love my work. I suppose you can say I have a balanced life.

So let's just get that off the table. I have no aspiration to receive money for my work - with one exception. When friends and aquaintances ask me to do stuff, I charge a fair rate. If they decline that is good. If they agree I give them their money back when I am finished. That way I know that my valuable time is not being wasted because someone is a cheapskate.

Danny Clinch is not really my style. Here are examples of styles I like:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131997843@N08/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joanfra/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66252143@N06/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/desertrose76/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66984294@N02/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/la_cla25/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/photorp/

and if you force me to predict which style I will move toward, I would offer this one up (this week):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mkuehn1/

I tend to agree with you on Marie, but I like the image with the bokeh as well because it is "fun". And it may surprise you all to know that my own personal favorites that I actually contemplate and admire are almost exclusively black and white, like:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/24904299806/in/dateposted/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/24091891093/in/dateposted/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/24678947805/in/dateposted/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/westendfoto/24221266321/in/dateposted/

I think I like black and white when I am serious and colour when I am cheerful.

I like the image that your client hated when I am in cheerful mode. I like your image when I am in serious mode. I thought that it looked like a colour black and white if that makes sense.

And yes, I do challenge Spraynpray's qualifications when he is critiquing a creative decision - particularly when he does not seem to have made an effort to determine what the creative objective is (sorry Spraynpray, but unless you are judging a contest, you are trying to help someone improve and you can't do that if you don't know what they are trying to achieve). But I think that if you read my post closely you will see that I am somewhat dismissive of the faves on Flickr. My primary objective on Flickr is to put an image of my choice at the time of my choosing on the top row of Explore. Where else can you get almost a hundred thousand views in 24 hours at will? I can now do that with my "cheerful" images. I still have some work to do before I can do it with my "serious" images. Secondary objectives are to have fun doing it - thus my other Flickr pages, to gather market data - thus one page in particular and to showcase Vancouver - thus an upcoming Flickr page.

You might be right about Picasso and Monet. I can't really speak for them.

I would be pleased to have lunch or dinner with you, but I am in Vancouver (and not Portland's suburb). Do you ever get there?

WestEndFoto

OK guys, here is the original image that Spraynpray dislikes:



And here is one with everything at 50%. Shadows, highlights, white, black, saturation, contrast and blue.



Ignoring other compositional and creative factors and considering the adjustments that I changed, do you really think the 50% image is better and the other is overdone. I don't like the 50% one, but the original cheers me up.

Well, I don't dislike the 50% image, but I find the original more cheerful.

WestEndFoto

vtc2002, I am curious what you think of the following image. Do you find it better with the colour not distracting from the subject or are the lights an issue - or both?

heartyfisher

:-) I think this thread is too off topic now :-) new thread for this interesting discussion on "style choices"?

spraynpray

Agreed @heartyfisher. Lets continue this on the 'critique my image' thread. We are dealing with dull skies here.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2324/critique-my-image

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto , @donaldejose and any others, I am curious what you would do to the following image. This image as you can see was taken on a cloudy and dreary day with dull skies.



There has been no post processing at all on this image. This is straight out of the camera.

WestEndFoto

Is that a raw file or jpeg straight out of the camera? If it was a jpeg, what were your in camera settings?

As the image stands now, I would do nothing.

donaldejose

vtc2002: Sorry, not a good example for our discussion of dull skys; but helpful to the conversation anyway. It may have been a dreary day but the sky is not dull at the time you took this photo. However, I find the tufa formation a bit too dull and dark. I would try to lighten only the tufa formation and maybe warm up that light to make it appear as if a ray of setting sun pierced through a gap in the clouds and hit the tufa formation. That would make the photo more dramatic and turn the tufa formation into the main subject with the sunset colors in sky and water a secondary subject or it would at least balance the two things the eye will naturally look at. It may not work but that is what I would try to do to see if it makes the photo "pop" and "balance" better.

heartyfisher

I would go there and shoot it many more times in various seasons and lightings :-)

Where is this ?

I agree that the rocky formation could do with a bit more separation from the background.

donaldejose

Mono Lake in California. Take Highway 120 over Yosemite Park to find it. Google it, there are many photos of the formations there. Ken Rockwell has one as the third image on this page. http://kenrockwell.com/ Notice that Ken likes bold colors and geometric shapes and textures. Bold color can create strong images but his portraits are terrible because his strong colors make for red skin tones, especially on his face.

vtc2002

@WestEndFoto The screenshot of the image in Lightroom is the Raw file. The image is a jpeg output of the RAW file with no edits. This was shot with a D7000, 70-200mm f2.8 at 105 35mm equivalent focal length, at f11, 1/3 second, ISO 100 and -0.7 exposure bias.

vtc2002

@heartyfisher Donaldejose is correct this is Mono Lake in the eastern part of California. It is one of my favorite places. Within a relatively short distance you can photograph Yosemite, Bristlecone Pines in the White Mountains, Mount Whitney, Death Valley, Mono Lake, June Lake, Muir Wilderness, ... I am sure that this is why Ken Rockwell has so many photos of the area. The weather can be bad in Yosemite and within a couple of hours the eastern part of the state can be beautiful and vice versa.

@donaldejose This was for the California Tourism Board and they requested the RAW file and the final processed file. They chose to go with the RAW unprocessed file. I agree with most of your comments about improving the image with the exception of the sun rays lightening up the tuffs. The sun was setting behind the tuff so I am not sure how that would have looked. This was a really challenging day to shoot the light was really dull and until the sun started to set there was nothing really worth shooting. I think I have the exact image about 5 minutes prior to this shot and it was really dull and dreary. I will post it if I can find it. Thanks for the feedback.

donaldejose

I wouldn't worry about the sun setting behind the tuffs because you cannot see the sun in the sky or obvious shadows. Most people wouldn't know if the sun was setting behind the camera or behind the tuffs or off to one side or the other at this time of day. The sun is just too low for that because it is below the horizon. I think you could get away with lighting up the tuffs.

WestEndFoto

My creative choice would be to leave the tufts or even darken them a bit. I like their drama.

heartyfisher

Just googled it.. what an awesome place for photos!!