Photo story of the week: Torment

I have been sitting with Lightroom almost all day editing pictures. The clarity slider makes wonder. Don't you think? :) And, then some vignetting! I am serious, I have done that. OK - not to all the pictures, but some. And yes, like somewhere down here said. If I redo them sometimes in the future, I will not use that much clarity.

And, I see the overdone clarity in the picture here. It makes it look smashing though! But, maybe, in the long run a bit smoother looks wins. Clarity do destroy some of the finesse.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

milkod2001

great shot

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Paul JN

Anyone who criticises should include a link to their own work so we can all see how it should be done. Without that link I ignore negative comments.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

I think this is a nice photo. Contrast enhancements, vignetting, etc are perfectly fine tools for making a decorative image IMHO.

But, asking about the complainers own work is a red herring. It is totally irrelevant and only shows that you are not prepared to argue about the real issues.

And, BTW, some of the "complainers" are ironic. Read it more carefully. They are not serious, but rather trying to make fun of complainers. Or, at least, so I read it.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Do you expect all food critics to hold three Michelan Stars? All movie critics to have a minimum of 2 Oscars and a BAFTA?

Your own talent doesn't change your ability to see problems.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

BadScience

Paul, so next time you see a bad movie; you cannot say it was bad because you haven't made a movie yourself?

Can't you see how fallacious such an argument is?

This is like all of this guys work: over-cooked. He needs to turn down the clarity and the blacks. They look like coloured black-and-white photos. I'm sure in a few years, he will return to the RAWs and re-do them how they should be done.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Paul JN

Ok i sort of agree but i do think the opinions of a talented photographer carry more weight.

Jul 24, 2017permalink

A talented photographer is nothing more than a critic who's had the time and drive to apply it to their own work (in itself clearly not an easy thing, but to me a person who can produce greatness is, with a few exceptions, a critic at heart)

Jul 24, 2017permalink

OliverGlass

Tough crowd. Ok, for the Chef & Cooking and Movie critic analogy, fine... we'll try to lick the screen to taste the candy like sRGB saturation levels. We'll try to overthink the photo too in terms of plot lines and elements as well; If there's a photo bomber, we'll have a supporting actor in the running. If the image is staged, we'll have a best director award for someone too.

Because Cooking and Cinema critiquing is applicable to photography.

Jul 24, 2017*permalink

Lol, you've lost me there ;-)

Jul 24, 2017permalink

BadScience

Oliver uses the word analogy, but doesn't understand what it means...

Jul 24, 2017permalink

I am not sure what Oliver mean, but I have to admit it was an unexpected reply :)

Jul 24, 2017permalink

Alp Oguz

Great scene, great shot. But looks like a digital art, not a photograph. Not for stacking or tree patterns, but for applying heavy tone adjustments and vignetting. Vignetting is a great visual tool, but should be used with care. Otherwise, when you want to direct your viewer attensions to the center of photograph, you can accidentally create a digital art as shown.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Yes, it is definitely digital art. Most landscape photographers do digital art. Landscapes are abstract. Contains often not any interesting information. Its not journalistic. It is something beautiful to hang on the wall. And - that is the definition of art. An artifact that only has a visual usage, esthetic or emotional.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Alp Oguz

No objection. Degree of post mostly decides where the image will be placed on the digital art - photograph scale. It is a matter of interpretation and taste. By the way, it is really a great place and some very nice "photographs" can be seen by Googling Skagsanden beach.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

WOW. I am a bit surprised by the patterns. It looks like water have flowed against the photographer. Is that so?

Jul 23, 2017permalink

jwinberg11

I am astounded at the nit-picking negative comments about this stunning image! Reminds me of someone, who commented "it doesn't go like that", about a Mozart string quartet. It was an unusual (and haunting) interpretation. ALL art forms are our interpretations, and inherently valid.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

So because all art forms are interpretations that means they are all inherently exempt from criticism? I'm glad not everyone agrees with you on that, otherwise we'd all be hanging stickmen on our walls thinking they were masterpieces because no-one ever thought there was anything worth improving about them.

Criticism is how artists grow, and any artist who thinks they're above criticism may as well give up IMO.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

steveTQP

I happen to like this image. I also respect a photographer's creative license, as the owner of the image. As for calling Ansel Adams' work "manipulated", I disagree. He was also simply using his available tools and techniques to enhance the information already contained in the image! Nothing wrong with this in my book, as "art" is just the creator's interpretation, is it not? Thank you for the inspiring image!

Jul 23, 2017permalink

John Tannock

Beautiful!

Jul 23, 2017permalink

OliverGlass

I look forward to any Erez Marom posts because of the teaching points and dissection of an image. The process is given away bravely and freely without ego.

I also like the resulting anti-photoshop comments. People probably think you don't need to do legwork to get the most detail. Geez.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Trundling

The name "Torment" doesn't do it justice. He should've called it "Overphotoshopped Nature Photograph that I Want to Win Some Award, Anything Really Please".

Jul 23, 2017permalink

How do you know the image is "Overphotshopped"? The photographer has stacked the images for better DOF and probably pimped the image as we all do in a post processing software package. The photographer has used in the field ND filter and gone the trouble of doing the leg work to get multi exposures to stack them. Also what award is the photographer trying to win? If it's an award on DPR than it's to share our work and see what others are trying to achieve out there for inspiration, ideas.... Please post some images in your gallery to give us some idea of your raw and not "Overphotoshopped" images.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Trundling

"as we all do"

After looking at your gallery, I have to apologize to Erez Marom. As it turns out, his photo is actually very moderately edited.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Please post an official apology to Erez citing my images as a benchmark. Though please let us know how his image is "Overphotoshopped" or I may start believing that the mythical troll might actually exist.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Astro Landscapes

This is one of the many recent instances in which I believe a 4:5 crop would have significantly enhanced a vertical landscape image. I've lost count of how many landscape shooters, even talented pros, never think to use this crop, probably simply because they can't bring themselves to throw away image data, or depart from what they originally saw through their viewfinder.

75-90% of the time, though, vertical landscape shots just don't work well at 2:3.

In this case, I'd crop the bottom just above the weird hole that looks distracting, and then whatever strip of sky also has to go in order to achieve 4:5, then so be it.

Maybe it's just a pet peeve and personal taste of mine...

Jul 23, 2017permalink

My "personal taste" it's a great image. The photographer has presented an image in their artistic way worts and all. I'm very interested in "75-90% of the time, though, vertical landscape shots just don't work well at 2:3." Please forward where I can find and read more about this data.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Astro Landscapes

@Ultimax,

Hence the "maybe just a pet peeve / personal taste of mine" comment.

75-90% of the vertical landscape images I have seen, especially in the last few years when 14-11mm ultra-wides became popular, have poor framing that would have been improved by a 4:5 crop / re-frame.

The only person to ever break that %% in my lifetime was Galen Rowell. And that was probably because he didn't shoot everything at 11mm or 14mm.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9071490684/wider-than-wide-a-landscape-photographers-review-of-the-canon-11-24mm

Thank you Matthew for the explanation. Appreciate you making the time to reply. Might read up on Galen Rowell!

Jul 24, 2017permalink

Olivier GALLEN

Similar boat: I like the native 4/3 ratio of my m43 camera for vertical photos (landscapes as well as portraits) rather than 3/2.
On horizontal landscapes, though, I prefer 3/2 or even more panoramic ones.

Jul 24, 2017permalink

Stitzer23

I'm not allowed to hate this pic because I'm not a published photographer. In the same way I'm not allowed to criticise the food served to me because I'm not an accomplished cook.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

knappe duivel

You should move to Amsterdam (I did), you can do stuff like that over here

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Paul JN

Great photo and title. Would be a powerful accompaniment to the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19)

Jul 23, 2017permalink

James I Am

They look like charcoal pencil drawings of dead trees on the beach. Really beautiful.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Karroly

I like this picture too. But, personally, I can see a magic forest with "flying" mountains above. Or the giant tentacles of a sea monster trying to capture the mountains. But that is only me...

Jul 23, 2017permalink

ThatCamFan

Why not just have Erez have the photo of the week every week with the same ten images you keep doing anyway?

Jul 22, 2017permalink

J A C S

That was the photo of the week which ended on May 6, as well:

It is so good - I am willing to vote for it to be the photo of two weeks!

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Yossarian1

Stunning image Erez. Inspires me to get off the computer and go take some photos!!

Jul 22, 2017permalink

PhotoUniverse

N/A

Jul 22, 2017*permalink

JT26

Cracking image and even better title

Jul 22, 2017permalink

zlatko

Stunning, beautiful photo. Excellent technique and result.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Michiel953

Ehh...; sorry, no.

Focus stacking? No.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

dudewithcamera

So, yeah it's not "a" photograph... But, it's a cool image anyhow. At least for me...

Jul 23, 2017permalink

OliverGlass

*Eyeroll stacking at comments like this

Jul 23, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

"Photo of the week: Torment"

Oh, the irony ;)

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Christian Unger

I really like these "Photo of the week" articles.
Very inspiring - any chance we can also see the runner-ups?
Thanks!

Jul 22, 2017permalink

tko

It's manipulated! Altered and presented as truth. Not even one image, but four! Fire that photographer immediately! And I'm sure Photoshop was used somewhere. According to some DPR members, it's cheating to post process for contests. We need to train the public to spot fakes like this before its too late.

At least it you believe the news from DPR . . .

Jul 22, 2017permalink

GreatOceanSoftware

It's the most interesting photo in the world.

Stay thirsty, my photog friends.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

VisualFX

Yep this is definitely manipulated and fake photo. Please DPR start checking resources and double check. I'd rather see REAL images of landscapes that are UNALTERED. Some color manipulation in Pshop is fine, but adding and taking away elements, and using extreme filters, NO.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Miike Dougherty

Manipulating the scene through adding and subtracting elements in post processing is real manipulation. Manipulating the camera and lens (focus stacking included) to capture an unaltered scene is not manipulation. Ansel Adams used tilt and shift, black and white film, and dodging and burning to enhance scenes inside and outside his camera. If the image above is NOT considered a real photograph, then so is all of Ansel Adams work.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

VisualFX

Ansel enhanced his photos, yes. But enhancing to bring out the original details, VS. completely manipulating and adding in scenery, in this case, making the sand look like nature painted those "trees", is false advertisement. This may be considered "art", but not a REAL photograph of the scene as it was on that day.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

PhotoUniverse

@VisualFX

The way I see it, it doesn't matter as long it appeals to someone. It's like he's saying this is a documentary.

What do you think of the black and white photos? Are they all fake because there is no way nature or a landscape is in black and white so the photographer "manipulated" the photo!

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Miike Dougherty

VisualFX ..... The "tree patterns" are just flowing water in the sand. This happens on lots of beaches. He just happened to have some mountains in the background. I use a Sigma 12-24 to capture the same type of scenery and am a little surprised that he had to use focus stacking to get everything in focus. Ansel used tilt and shift.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

brett nz

You cant train the public - it is too late - very soon you will be able to holiday virtually in your living room, very little is "real" - we may even be the ones that create the matrix within 50 years - and we may need to. To think we can reign in altered images now is naive in my humble opinion - success of images was and will always be in the eye of the beholder.

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Erez Marom

VisualFX, I'm intrigued. What makes you think I reverted to "completely manipulating and adding in scenery, in this case, making the sand look like nature painted those trees"?
Nature most certainly did make the trees. There was no transforming or warping, no addition or subtraction of elements, nothing much except a contrast boost, some vignetting and focus stacking.
This beach makes these trees all the time. It actually makes much better, bigger and more elaborate ones quite often. I understand that you haven't seen it and it might be a bit hard to believe, but why is your premise that I've faked it all?

Jul 23, 2017permalink

Am I the only one who prefers it cropped to lose the bottom 1/8th or so?

Jul 22, 2017permalink

BaldCol

deleted. posted in error

Jul 22, 2017*permalink

left eye

...but then it becomes a more predictable foreground/background landscape shot.

If anything I'd crop 10% off the top, to really draw attention and power to the 'forest'.

Jul 22, 2017*permalink

Mike CH

No, I'd like that black splotch and the lower dark corners gone, too.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

Techo

Geometrically, I'd agree to get rid of the bottom but then the image loses its eeriness. Currently it looks like a dark figure reaching out. The nature of our displays and the site's layout would make most people scroll to see the whole image. As a full print on a wall, it might look better.

Jul 22, 2017permalink

I can see the image whole without scrolling (if anyone's screen isn't high enough resolution, just right click and open in new tab/window) and just feel that much that dark throws it off a bit. I wouldn't lose all of it, just a bit, or adjust it/the "hands". This is obviously all just personal preference, that's sort of the joy of art after all. Would be curious to hear the original photographers reasons for cropping that way though.

Jul 22, 2017permalink