Sharing Comments and Criticism..

[havoc315]

Which leads to the question -

which is worse;

Drunken photography or drunken post processing

Having done both I would say overall the results are usually ugly but on rare occasion genius.

I did this couple shoot in December, on the water... it was windy, it was cold. The couple wanted the photos quickly. I told them I was going to go home and start processing, but I warned them that I'd be drinking scotch while I worked, and the final results could get interesting.

I think the results came out ok..

Sunset Kiss by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

This leads me to the idea of underexposing, lifting shadows etc. To my eye the Vatican shot above needs more contrast and shadows. It seems so may shooters now are more enamored with showing off ultra high DR that everything they shoot begins to look HDRish. I fell in to this trap but now prefer dark, shadowy contrasty images. Think of your typical Leica shot. https://www.flickr.com/groups/leica/ Also DPR has a great Leica forum with tons of good shots. More comments coming.

I'm starting to fall into that boat. It's like we're not allowed to have shadows anymore. I just made a high contrast B&W monochromatic preset on my LR.

There is a trend now towards "darker & grittier". Maybe it reflects current social mood or maybe it's backlash against bad "cartoonish" and "radioactive" HDR. If you go on to 500px and view the most popular images over a period of a few days you'll notice this move to the "Dark Side".

 

[havoc315]

I'm starting to fall into that boat. It's like we're not allowed to have shadows anymore. I just made a high contrast B&W monochromatic preset on my LR.

There is a trend now towards "darker & grittier". Maybe it reflects current social mood or maybe it's backlash against bad "cartoonish" and "radioactive" HDR. If you go on to 500px and view the most popular images over a period of a few days you'll notice this move to the "Dark Side".

Trends come and go. Many people have a definitive style, whether it be very high contrast, or lots of HDR. I wouldn't say there is a right or wrong. Subjectively in my tastes, there are some shots that really benefit from HDR, and even from tone mapping, but I would never do that to every photo. IMO, there is nothing wrong with lifting shadows, but you still need to make sure the image has plenty of contrast.
I have a preset in lightroom that I like, that really lifts the shadows (like +80), but lifts the contrast fully (+100). The cruise shots under the bridge have basically those adjustments. Manages to open up the shadows while really preserving the pop of contrast.

In terms of hidden shadows... That's an artistic choice and it benefits some photos. Adds a moody look. But like HDR, it can be overdone.

Just my 2 cents.. meaning probably only worth about 1 cent.

 

[dmaxphil]

I did this couple shoot in December, on the water... it was windy, it was cold. The couple wanted the photos quickly. I told them I was going to go home and start processing, but I warned them that I'd be drinking scotch while I worked, and the final results could get interesting.

I think the results came out ok..

I admire you for turning this in to a gig. Your clients seem comfortable in front of you - thats a big step. In the photo above I see it two ways. On the one hand I like the silhouette created from the sun, on the other hand I would like to see more of their faces. Not sure if you use Nik, but for this type of shot I would use Color Efx or Viveza to make corrective adjustments using control points to the upper body/head area to add contrast w/background just a bit. A little bit goes a long way when making these types of adjustments. See which version you like best.

Quotes not working all of a sudden, but in the portrait of the same couple with the trees/blue sky in the background I would do the opposite. Use a control point to tone down the blue a bit. Not saying it would end up better, but choices can be good.

 

[havoc315]

I admire you for turning this in to a gig. Your clients seem comfortable in front of you - thats a big step. In the photo above I see it two ways. On the one hand I like the silhouette created from the sun, on the other hand I would like to see more of their faces. Not sure if you use Nik, but for this type of shot I would use Color Efx or Viveza to make corrective adjustments using control points to the upper body/head area to add contrast w/background just a bit. A little bit goes a long way when making these types of adjustments. See which version you like best.

Quotes not working all of a sudden, but in the portrait of the same couple with the trees/blue sky in the background I would do the opposite. Use a control point to tone down the blue a bit. Not saying it would end up better, but choices can be good.

Thank you for the feedback... but no, I'm not really familiar with that software. Tell me how to do the same thing with Lightroom, and I'd give it a try... but I don't think I could bring out too much more in their faces. I already pushed the raw quite a long way in that shot.

I agree with your about choices, though there are different schools of thought. Most pros I've encountered, seem to prefer that all the photos from the same session have the same consistent "look." I'm sometimes knocked for trying different post-processing looks for the same session. Personally, I like giving the clients choices.

 

[dmaxphil]

Most pros I've encountered, seem to prefer that all the photos from the same session have the same consistent "look." I'm sometimes knocked for trying different post-processing looks for the same session. Personally, I like giving the clients choices.

That's a very good point. That's why I said a little goes a long way. You don't want to go so far overboard it doesn't fit in with the series. With lightroom, the adjustment brush would be the closest thing off the top of my head. On the develop control panel on right side, it's on top right.

 

[dmaxphil]

This is me using the adjustment brush on your photo. Screenshot of before/after lightroom. Not saying I like it more, but it's nice to have the ability to adjust individual areas without impacting the rest of photo.

 

[havoc315]

This is me using the adjustment brush on your photo. Screenshot of before/after lightroom. Not saying I like it more, but it's nice to have the ability to adjust individual areas without impacting the rest of photo.

Oh, ok. Yes, I already use the LR brush, and graduated filters. And sometimes photoshop layers and masks.
I looked up Nik, just seems to be a shortcut for what I already do. Your edit looks good... But looking at the full sized copy, I think I already pushed it as much as I could without really degrading it. I'll post the before/after later.

 

[havoc315]

Yeah, I had pushed it as far as possible in lightroom...

This was the original untouched raw:

jilchris-208.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

This was my edit shared with clients:
jilchris-208.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

My attempt to push just the faces a bit further in lightroom: (I don't like it)
jilchris-208-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Though I did play around with a couple other looks for the photo:

Bringing the background down further:
jilchris-208-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Bringing down the background and trying a different crop:
jilchris-208-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[dmaxphil]

That was pretty good considering the original.

 

[havoc315]

That was pretty good considering the original.

I had to underexpose or else I would have completely lost the ability to recover the sunset. I could have exposed for the couple, but the background would then have been a total washout.

The best option would have been a reflector but it wasn't practical for this shoot. I could have used a flash, but it would have created a very different look.

 

[TheBigE]

Couple Photo - Well done. It is a great example of that only 1/2 the work at most is done with the shutter button. Certainly underexposing is the only option in this case otherwise you risk blowing out the highlights. On the photo of the two in the sunset kissing the yellow sunspot on the right hip of the man in the foreground to me is a big distraction and seems out of place. I do like the balance you did in PP, keeping the Orange colors of the sunset just at the right level not to wash out the rest of the photo.

Underexposing - In general I leave my EC at -0.7, this helps with SS and then I can lift shadows in PP. Any nighttime shots I try to set at 0.0 EC as it seems this is better for me in terms of any noise. (Less shadows for the noise to hide). Where I struggle is trying to selectively raise the shadows in one area while leaving others in the dark. I am not really good with the brush in LR yet and have tried some Mask in PS. For now, I usually end up raising ALL the shadows in PP. I do agree there is a balance and it is a learning curve on how to find that in PP.

 

[fractal]

alright, fire away...

 

[dmaxphil]

alright, fire away...

I like it. It looks natural. One thing I find myself looking for in landscape type shots is "tree glow". Trees and branches will develop a halo against sky background when an image is processed a bit too hard. So all the trees look good. This is a shot where I'd either try to go wider to capture the left ramp rails and right side umbrella, or shift composition so that it's one or the other. Here's a potential crop. But I think the width makes the original the better version.

 

[havoc315]

alright, fire away...

Mid morning?
The shot is technically okay... But to me, this speaks the difference between a snapshot and something more. This is a perfectly decent vacation snapshot. It's not a memorable shot that you want to stare at and appreciate, it's not something you would frame and put on the wall. Not that there is much wrong with it, per se. Just lacks any oomph, for lack of a better word.

Looking at it technically... Unfortunately, more vacation photos get taken in the least interesting light, because that's when you happen to be there. They don't let you in to take pictures of The Land at sunrise, unfortunately. Though you generally have the freedom to do closer to sunset and night. In this case, the good is that you preserved a nice blue sky with enough clouds, to prevent a flat sky. Unfortunately, the shadows don't really add anything to the photo.
In terms of composition, you have the green overhang on the right side, which should be photoshopped out of that photo easily. You then have the railing on the left... I'd like to see it removed, but it might be a bit more challenging to remove with photoshop.
In terms of composition otherwise, it's technically ok, but could be more interesting perhaps. Perhaps being closer to "The Land" sign to make it bigger and more prominent in the photo. It really is the only interesting element of the photo, and it's rather small in the frame. The winding paths could be played upon, but they are somewhat hidden in this composition. Giving you the same feedback I've received on some vacation landscapes, can be helpful to get lower to the ground as well. The glass pyramid is the most interesting part of the pavilion and its hidden by trees from this angle.

What was your focal length for this shot?

In fairness, I just don't think it's the most interesting spot for photography. I searched google and flickr, searched Tom Bricker's photos (As far as I'm concerned, he is the undisputed master of Disney wide angle photography), and I couldn't find a single interesting shot of the sign and pavilion.
I finally came across this photo on flickr:

The Land by Matthew Cooper, on Flickr

It did the things I was talking about... Closer to the sign, utilizing the path, leading to the pyramid. And of course, taken in more interesting light by using a long exposure night shot.

 

[TheBigE]

alright, fire away...

I guess I would go with...Meh as an assessment. Interestingly enough I just went through my last set of photos from my trip and I counted 10 shots of this same area at nearly the same time. The second group was a bit later in the afternoon, so in the January months the lights was a bit more pleasing....frankly none of my results were all that impressive. Anyways, back to your photo - Two factors here I see are at play - 1) Mid Day Harsh Light and 2) Wide Angle lens (I am assuming).

I am not sure the FL of the shot, but might still be in the 17mm range on crop sensor...I am really not sure maybe wider? I get the feeling that it could be in the UWA range....or at least close. I do not travel with my UWA lens, I find the lens really takes a special focus on composition...and requires a bit more thought and planning. Maybe I just do not have enough experience with the lens at this point, but for me more often then not UWA is just a tough lens to use.

Mid Day Light - Not much you can do here, Harsh Overhead light and WA shot are tough to pull off. I would go in for the details, the sign, the flowers etc. Just not worth the "landscape" type photo. IMO.

Here is my best attempt at nearly the same location....again, not one I am super proud of, I did some heavy PP and cropping to make it somewhat pleasing. Maybe a slight tic above a tourist photo, but not much. As always, any comments are welcome.

Really in the end, just not sure there is much in the area to capture....

 

[dmaxphil]

Ok have at it. Taken tonight. It's a diet Pepsi can, a picnic table and a pasture. 30s exposure with some light painting on table and bushes.

 

[fractal]

Well, you guys nailed it with my Land shot as I was hustling through Epcot with my two daughters on a summer day. Stopping for photos was a major annoyance to them. You're also right on that area being tough to compose or find something interesting. I took several shots actually and this was the best of the lot. I spent way too much time in Post trying to make it better than it really was. Thanks for your honesty!

I do like the nighttime LE shot Adam posted. I took a similar shot of the sign that @TheBigE put up but "eh" is a good word. Next time I'm there I won't spend as much time trying to make something out of nothing.

 

[fractal]

Ok have at it. Taken tonight. It's a diet Pepsi can, a picnic table and a pasture. 30s exposure with some light painting on table and bushes.

I appreciate the effort. The most interesting thing to me about this photo is the nighttime shadows off the soda can and table.

 

[havoc315]

Well, you guys nailed it with my Land shot as I was hustling through Epcot with my two daughters on a summer day. Stopping for photos was a major annoyance to them. You're also right on that area being tough to compose or find something interesting. I took several shots actually and this was the best of the lot. I spent way too much time in Post trying to make it better than it really was. Thanks for your honesty!

I do like the nighttime LE shot Adam posted. I took a similar shot of the sign that @TheBigE put up but "eh" is a good word. Next time I'm there I won't spend as much time trying to make something out of nothing.

I'm back at Disney for the first time in 4 years this summer, and now I consider it my challenge to get an interesting shot of The Land Pavilion!

But yeah... There really isn't much to photograph there, combined with poor lighting...

If I recall correctly, the other Epcot pavilions are much more interesting to photograph. Especially the Universe of Energy.