Bad landscape with good pp or good landscape with bad pp?

[Snaphaan]

Recently I've been re-thinking my whole approach to pp. I dunno why but I might be overdoing or trying to fix really boring images. I don't like that idea so I'm posting here both trying to get some feedback. Whether my photos look like they have been dipped in a 'make-up' kit to liven them up or whether my pp is just overdone... maybe both.

Just a few weeks ago I saw some of my parents old slides and they were beautiful! Both were pretty good photographers even though they mostly took images of me and my sister. Anyway...

Some of the colors were striking but all of it had no pp done to it like we have today. I find that a lot of landscape photographers push the reds and blues together in a drastic way, trying to achieve some otherworldly effect. When I saw these images I was stunned and lately I've been feeling a bit disappointed in myself for trying to keep up with Mr. Saturation over there.

Oh well, with all that babbling out of the way let me show you some of my more recent stuff (month or so ago) and throw in a couple of questions. These are all RAW edits (10 bit RAW) - taken with a 8mp Canon Powershot S5 IS:




This is the original (click to enlarge):



Would you consider this a good pp approach to the image, or just a pp push to fix a originally bad and dull photo? I just need some fresh eyes giving critique here.

The following image was a panorama. I know that morning was pretty golden, yellow. Somehow I got it, yellow-pinkish or something in my pp. People seem to like it but I don't know. It might be that I am actually fixing terrible shots or messing them up because I get carried away.
I mean, why did my camera not register the true picture as it was? Why are these images so dull? It might be stupid questions but its bugging me terribly.




These two images are the original panorama parts:



These are some of my other images if you are interested.

Just a last thing. About sharpness in these images. Do you get the impression that they are a bit woolly? Not too sharp? Maybe its just all the detail and the fact that these images are not very 'clean' minimalistic. I'm also taking into account the blurring of the foreground in the first one with my sister. Maybe it has something to do with my camera's sensor size or lens quality?

In a week or two I'm getting a 1100D with polarizer and ND filters so I guess that should give me a new perspective on image quality. But for now I would appreciate any constructive feedback.

I know that pp is mostly a matter of opinion and no-one can really advice me on what is right and wrong since it is all relative to the person taking the photo. But would you consider these as reasonable photos with normal pp or bad photos with waco pp to fix them?

Thanks for checking this out!

 

[shufti]

The 'pp' of your parents slides was fundementally two things. First the exposures (i assume) were spot-on. Second, any and all film stock whether transparency or reversal has an inherent tone-curve which gives that film is signature look. With a digital, raw capture, you open it in your editor and adjust curves. A jpeg has an in-camera tone-curve applied.

 

[shufti]

Your original with RGB tone-curve adjusted

Your original with gamma value increased 46%

Your original with luminance and individual RGB channels trimmed to the edges of the histogram

An imaginary film stock with it's own unique tone-curve, saturation (used with or without color temperature adjustment filter etc)

 

[Snaphaan]

Thanks for the quick reply!

That edit you did is really hitting the nail on the head Very subtle and the effect looks a LOT more natural. Thanks for the added work details. So in a way this is what slide film does?

Also, I guess without really saying it you reckon it was a potentially good image it just needed a more delicate hand (such as yourself) to pull it out of its misery?

 

[Overread]

Remember old film slides and prints WERE edited - in the tech lab by the technician to make them from a negative into the final result - however in the past many people just had the technician do this work, rather than doing it themselves and thus was born the whole concept of a photographic workflow that only went as far as pressing the shutter button.

This is not to say that you have to edit a great deal, nor that the stage up to pressing the shutter is in any way less important (actually many people I know who do a lot of editing to really push a photo are even more critical about getting it right in camera). What it is saying is that editing in itself is not a sin nor something you should try to avoid. In addition, as you've noticed yourself, auto white balance can sometimes mistake the light or not quite get it as good as it was - then you've your RAWs where you can correct this error or even use your own artistic judgement to create the final work.

 

[shufti]

@Snaphaan
It's a bit more complicated discussing prints (photopaper or ink) as these materials have also their own properties. But essentially, film has an individual tonal-range, contrast, saturation, gamma. Running slides of fim type 'X' through a projector with correct bulb wattage and type against a proper slidescreen gives you a predictable result. With digital, in some ways the total flexibility to how a raw image can be 'developed' can become overwhelming.

 

[shufti]

s a potentially good image it just needed a more delicate hand

Appologies if my monitor is uncalibrated and has made a mess of trying to illustrate this but I think an important thing in 'PP' is to minimally use adjustments in an objective way. Levels and curves are key. And as you wrote earlier, if i'm twiddling around for twenty minutes on an image to make it interesting, it's probably a bad shot.

 

[Snaphaan]

Remember old film slides and prints WERE edited - in the tech lab by the technician to make them from a negative into the final result - however in the past many people just had the technician do this work, rather than doing it themselves and thus was born the whole concept of a photographic workflow that only went as far as pressing the shutter button.

Jeez, come to think of it. If ever there was a point in photography history where they thought its not a form of art, it must have been one of the most thoughtless conclusions ever. :shock: Seems it never has been a point-and-click affair.

@Snaphaan
Running slides of fim type 'X' through a projector with correct bulb wattage and type against a proper slidescreen gives you a predictable result. With digital, in some ways the total flexibility to how a raw image can be 'developed' can become overwhelming.

I am sometimes overwhelmed by the possibilities! Maybe the reason why I feel I 'get carried away'. I just need a standardized work flow from where I can develop my images.

What it is saying is that editing in itself is not a sin nor something you should try to avoid. In addition, as you've noticed yourself, auto white balance can sometimes mistake the light or not quite get it as good as it was - then you've your RAWs where you can correct this error or even use your own artistic judgement to create the final work.

But then, if pp in itself is not a issue then individual interpretation isn't either. Right? That means if I take a photo and pp into abstract oblivion it is nothing dissimilar than a artist like Picasso working from a live model and interpreting the shape in blocks, lines and flat areas of color. It might not be 'realistic' but from a intellectual or personal point of view it made/makes sense. Just a thought that came up to me...

So why the hell am I posting here if my pp is really just a different interpretation from paints and brushes?

 

[Overread]

But then, if pp in itself is not a issue then individual interpretation isn't either. Right? That means if I take a photo and pp into abstract oblivion it is nothing dissimilar than a artist like Picasso working from a live model and interpreting the shape in blocks, lines and flat areas of color. It might not be 'realistic' but from a intellectual or personal point of view it made/makes sense. Just a thought that came up to me...

Exactly - it isn't any different at all. Heck I've seen some fantastic work which was based around a photo being more a part of a final collage - one that sticks in the mind was a shot of four or so explorers in arctic gear. The shot was taken on a sunny street in a regular town without a hint of snow anywhere whilst the final work was of them in deep snow in a blizzard.

I think that many often make the assumption that people choose photography as a way of recording what was actually there at the time; or at least presenting a likeness as close to what was there as is possible with the technology. However when one takes into account the fact that a compositional choice of what to include and exclude from the frame has already made a difference to what was "really" there we enter a very hazy world of definitions indeed.

In my own mind its important for a photographer when shooting to have an idea what their intent might be - to present a factual display of the sunset - to make an artistic representation - etc.. And its up to the individual photographer to decide how far is too far when editing - though I always argue that to make that choice they must first learn to edit too far and then make the choice to scale back - rather than learning only to edit so far and then no further (because then they are not operating through choice but though a limitation of their understanding.