[Trijicon]

Originally Posted by ddk632

What would you do to it as it sits now, just curious?

Since you asked, I would close the image a little more with a graduated filters on the top. I love magenta during these daylight hours so I would have shifted the color balance that way. Then just a little "clarity" slider and that's it. It's an awesome image already, so I wouldn't do too much.

Here's a quick sample.

[ddk632]

Not at all man... post is one of those things.. I'm not a purist or against PP; in fact, sometimes a shot is begging for a different look in PP that can make it more interesting. So my comment was "mostly" true but no 100% of the time true, even for me.

My question was more along of the lines of, hey, maybe I didn't think of something or what would this guy do, you know?

What's funny is one of my shots that has literally no PP on it gets confused for being edited to shit, but I used GND filters (Signh-Ray) which, when stacked, add a magenta cast over the sky, and it was a spectacular fiery red sunrise, so people have a hard time believing it.

Thanks for the compliments on the shot and no worries, I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

[ddk632]

Nice edit, definitely takes the otherworldly look a step further. I like how it emphasizes the rocks in the foreground more.

[Trijicon]

Originally Posted by ddk632

Not at all man... post is one of those things.. I'm not a purist or against PP; in fact, sometimes a shot is begging for a different look in PP that can make it more interesting. So my comment was "mostly" true but no 100% of the time true, even for me.

My question was more along of the lines of, hey, maybe I didn't think of something or what would this guy do, you know?

What's funny is one of my shots that has literally no PP on it gets confused for being edited to shit, but I used GND filters (Signh-Ray) which, when stacked, add a magenta cast over the sky, and it was a spectacular fiery red sunrise, so people have a hard time believing it.

Thanks for the compliments on the shot and no worries, I don't think you have anything to apologize for.

Cool... I like that you are open minded. All artists should be. To edit themselves and progress.

[Trijicon]

Originally Posted by ddk632

Nice edit, definitely takes the otherworldly look a step further. I like how it emphasizes the rocks in the foreground more.

Thanks

[ddk632]

Liquid Sun by ddk632, on Flickr

[GarenM]

Can't resist posting a shot of the new baby.

BMW 435i GC by Garen M., on Flickr

[Itsed65]

Originally Posted by GarenM

Can't resist posting a shot of the new baby.

Nice car

[Itsed65]

Minus the Mopar
I love the color rendering of this camera. I use the built in profile for it in lightroom and barely touch anything else.

Morning at Fort Baker by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[ddk632]

^^
Nice!


Under Two Suns by ddk632, on Flickr

[dcstep]

David and Trijicon, nice discussion with good examples. I lean toward the less processed and prefer the subtle pastels of David's take, but both interpretations are beautiful.

I try to get as close to what I saw as possible, but people sometimes don't believe me when I say that the following really happens here in Colorado:

Afterglow - Clouds After Sunset by dcstep, on Flickr

[ddk632]

Dave, I believe it because I spent literally 24 hours in Colorado and saw the most spectacular sunrise of my entire life to date, and that was in December 2012.

I've posted it before (probably in the previous snapshot thread 3 years ago, haha) but since we're on the subject, can't hurt to post again; trijicon this is the shot I was referring to earlier. Zero PP on it - I shot it with the 6D when it was barely a few days post-release (I had it on pre-order) and at that time, the latest Lightroom didn't even work with the newer RAW files that the 6D produced.


Sunrise of Fire (EOS 6D) by ddk632, on Flickr

The only thing that makes my shot harder to believe than it should is the magenta cast on the sky which is exacerbated by stacking multiple Singh-Ray filters over the lens - 3 of them for this shot - which, unfortunately, I can't fix without seemingly altering other parts of the colors and making the whole thing worse. So I have just left it.

I rarely use my Singh-Ray filters anymore because of the damn magenta cast, which is a shame because they are otherwise awesome. Plus, the lens I tend to shoot with the most takes a 6x8" GND anyway. I use that often. The 6D also is great in that I can bring up shadows a LOT and still have a usable image, something that with my previous Rebel XTi (400D) was, well, a complete joke.

[Trijicon]

Originally Posted by dcstep

David and Trijicon, nice discussion with good examples. I lean toward the less processed and prefer the subtle pastels of David's take, but both interpretations are beautiful.

I try to get as close to what I saw as possible, but people sometimes don't believe me when I say that the following really happens here in Colorado:

Beautiful clouds! I actually like both schools of thought. It seems as though the new style of landscape photography is highly processed, HDR, punchy colors, and cross processing. If you peruse the landscape section of 500px, all shots utilize this style. Trey Ratcliff was one of the first photogs to push this style.

I try to find a happy balance between the two. Here are some examples of my post processing style. I have more examples on my photography site.
www.FGimages.com

[Trijicon]

Originally Posted by ddk632

Dave, I believe it because I spent literally 24 hours in Colorado and saw the most spectacular sunrise of my entire life to date, and that was in December 2012.

I've posted it before (probably in the previous snapshot thread 3 years ago, haha) but since we're on the subject, can't hurt to post again; trijicon this is the shot I was referring to earlier. Zero PP on it - I shot it with the 6D when it was barely a few days post-release (I had it on pre-order) and at that time, the latest Lightroom didn't even work with the newer RAW files that the 6D produced.


Sunrise of Fire (EOS 6D) by ddk632, on Flickr

The only thing that makes my shot harder to believe than it should is the magenta cast on the sky which is exacerbated by stacking multiple Singh-Ray filters over the lens - 3 of them for this shot - which, unfortunately, I can't fix without seemingly altering other parts of the colors and making the whole thing worse. So I have just left it.

I rarely use my Singh-Ray filters anymore because of the damn magenta cast, which is a shame because they are otherwise awesome. Plus, the lens I tend to shoot with the most takes a 6x8" GND anyway. I use that often. The 6D also is great in that I can bring up shadows a LOT and still have a usable image, something that with my previous Rebel XTi (400D) was, well, a complete joke.

Whoah!!!! that's crazy. It does look post processed. I like it a lot! Yeah to balance it with the foreground, you have to push foreground more then back off the saturation/clarity of the whole image a bit to balance it out.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by ddk632

Dave, I believe it because I spent literally 24 hours in Colorado and saw the most spectacular sunrise of my entire life to date, and that was in December 2012.

I've posted it before (probably in the previous snapshot thread 3 years ago, haha) but since we're on the subject, can't hurt to post again; trijicon this is the shot I was referring to earlier. Zero PP on it - I shot it with the 6D when it was barely a few days post-release (I had it on pre-order) and at that time, the latest Lightroom didn't even work with the newer RAW files that the 6D produced.
.

Colorado in the winter is a magical time for sunrise and sunset. You caught it just right.

[ddk632]

Great images by the way, trijicon, especially the last one. Awesome work!

[UncleWede]

This last page just reinforces for me how beautiful NATURE is. Even in the shots that include something man-made, it's nature that makes it beautiful.

[GarenM]

Incredible series of landscapes, folks. I'm thoroughly impressed by the talent here.

[M_Six]

There's an interesting discussion/debate on POTN on PP-enhanced landscapes vs unprocessed ("True to life") shots. Personally I don't see the problem with boosting some aspects like clarity and contrast and saturation. I even enjoy an occasional "over-the-top" HDR if it's done right. My goal is always to produce an image that makes me happy. If others like it, that's very cool. If they don't, that's fine as well.

I see some folks taking a perfectly clear shot and turning it into a 70's Polaroid snapshot complete with light bleed and low contrast. That's not for me. It works for some folks, though. That's what's cool about photography. You can do so much with it.

I really like your processing, Francis. Those shots would look great on the wall, and that's what counts.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

There's an interesting discussion/debate on POTN on PP-enhanced landscapes vs unprocessed ("True to life") shots. Personally I don't see the problem with boosting some aspects like clarity and contrast and saturation. I even enjoy an occasional "over-the-top" HDR if it's done right. My goal is always to produce an image that makes me happy. If others like it, that's very cool. If they don't, that's fine as well.

...

I think there are two polarized views that are both wrong. One that based on the presumption that the in-camera Raw or JPEG files is "accurate" and the other is that if a slider is good a 5, it's ten-times better at 50.

The first view is wrong because the Raw file is a data collection, not a finished product. Those of us that Expose To The Right, end up with a much larger file with more data points than we'd have if we exposed as if we were shooting Kodachrome 25. That Raw data file is a starting point that requires processing to get close to what the eye saw at the moment the image was captured. OTOH, an in-camera JPEG is merely a set of compromise alterations to the Raw file, based on the tastes of a committee of Japanese engineers.

OTOH, the sliders-right crew are mostly trying to make up for their failure to catch a special image and turn the ordinary into something extraordinary, that the eye never saw. There are some truly gifted artists that populate this end of the continuum, but there's so much junk that it's hard to find true art. The true artists at this end of the spectrum amaze me and I'll never be able to compete with them, so I stay at the other end of the spectrum.

If you hang in the galleries of photographers that sell lots of prints for $500 and more, you'll see Saturation and Contrast a bit to the right of neutral. I've started doing this with my own work, but tend to keep sliders in the single-digits. Still, I want so sell some things and find that a little "pop" moves the hand toward the wallet a little faster, right or wrong.

I was once looking at a 72" print of Colorado aspens with the printer that had printed the work and noticed smeared details in the middle where something had been Cloned out poorly and the Saturation and Contrast overall was over the top, almost rocking you back in your shoes. The printer acknowledged all the "flaws" that I saw and noted that the print was the top seller in the gallery, which included works by John Fielder and other top photographers. What people want in their homes and what we photographers view as perfection often do not align.

Dave

[Itsed65]

Berkeley Pier at Sunset by lennycarl08, on Flickr

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I think there are two polarized views that are both wrong. One that based on the presumption that the in-camera Raw or JPEG files is "accurate" and the other is that if a slider is good a 5, it's ten-times better at 50.

The first view is wrong because the Raw file is a data collection, not a finished product. Those of us that Expose To The Right, end up with a much larger file with more data points than we'd have if we exposed as if we were shooting Kodachrome 25. That Raw data file is a starting point that requires processing to get close to what the eye saw at the moment the image was captured. OTOH, an in-camera JPEG is merely a set of compromise alterations to the Raw file, based on the tastes of a committee of Japanese engineers.

OTOH, the sliders-right crew are mostly trying to make up for their failure to catch a special image and turn the ordinary into something extraordinary, that the eye never saw. There are some truly gifted artists that populate this end of the continuum, but there's so much junk that it's hard to find true art. The true artists at this end of the spectrum amaze me and I'll never be able to compete with them, so I stay at the other end of the spectrum.

If you hang in the galleries of photographers that sell lots of prints for $500 and more, you'll see Saturation and Contrast a bit to the right of neutral. I've started doing this with my own work, but tend to keep sliders in the single-digits. Still, I want so sell some things and find that a little "pop" moves the hand toward the wallet a little faster, right or wrong.

I was once looking at a 72" print of Colorado aspens with the printer that had printed the work and noticed smeared details in the middle where something had been Cloned out poorly and the Saturation and Contrast overall was over the top, almost rocking you back in your shoes. The printer acknowledged all the "flaws" that I saw and noted that the print was the top seller in the gallery, which included works by John Fielder and other top photographers. What people want in their homes and what we photographers view as perfection often do not align.

Dave

Agreed on all points. I've seen photos in hotel lobbies that make me cringe. Some with horrible CA, some with missed focus, and some with major noise. Even my former office had horrible pics on the wall and they paid a bundle for them.