Dawn

[Ronnoco]

The edit you posted is pleasing to view, but it is an entirely different image than the one Seb posted originally. It lost the mysterious feel and abstract like quality of Sebs original, albeit it is a nice edit, it turned into a completely different image than I think Seb intended it to be. Do you know what I mean?

I indicated earlier that my edit produced a different image, but I did not see any mysterious feel or abstract quality in the posted original. As a matter of fact, J Dogg's blue version which looked more like moonlight, created more mystery than the original as well.

If you keep up with landscape photography through magazines such as Outdoor Photography, Popular Photography and some of the Adobe related photo publishing for pros, you realize that subtle, soft, pale tones are out and bright, warm, rich, saturated colours are very much in. The emphasis is on the colour in colour photography and to bring "into focus" the colour and detail that the eye may have seen, but the camera missed. This is also the reason for concern for dynamic range and smooth tonal transitions.

Now, weak colour can be compensated for by excellent composition, but that means several elements working together and lack of detail in a dark area is not generally seen as a positive compositional element, nor is the necessity to crop the top part of the sky with the uniform grey cloud. The white building on the shore can also not tell, suggest, or imply a story if it is barely visible enough to even be noticed by the viewer. The earth on shore was the typical redish colour of the area in my edit, but not in the original.

So, I have no problem experimenting with and following some of the current trends in the pro community of landscape photographers since they coincide with elements of technique and composition that have always been the basis for artistic photography.

No surprise that not everyone agrees, since not everyone does landscape photography in any serious or professional manner and most have little knowledge and little experience in this area.

Ronnoco

[Seb]

I indicated earlier that my edit produced a different image, but I did not see any mysterious feel or abstract quality in the posted original. As a matter of fact, J Dogg's blue version which looked more like moonlight, created more mystery than the original as well.

If you keep up with landscape photography through magazines such as Outdoor Photography, Popular Photography and some of the Adobe related photo publishing for pros, you realize that subtle, soft, pale tones are out and bright, warm, rich, saturated colours are very much in. The emphasis is on the colour in colour photography and to bring "into focus" the colour and detail that the eye may have seen, but the camera missed. This is also the reason for concern for dynamic range and smooth tonal transitions.

Now, weak colour can be compensated for by excellent composition, but that means several elements working together and lack of detail in a dark area is not generally seen as a positive compositional element, nor is the necessity to crop the top part of the sky with the uniform grey cloud. The white building on the shore can also not tell, suggest, or imply a story if it is barely visible enough to even be noticed by the viewer. The earth on shore was the typical redish colour of the area in my edit, but not in the original.

So, I have no problem experimenting with and following some of the current trends in the pro community of landscape photographers since they coincide with elements of technique and composition that have always been the basis for artistic photography.

No surprise that not everyone agrees, since not everyone does landscape photography in any serious or professional manner and most have little knowledge and little experience in this area.

Ronnoco

Well I am not too sure what to answer here other than referring you one more time to Michael Reichmann works (and Ari Magg while we are at it). I will also repeat that our monitors appears to have surprisingly different rendering. I hear what you are saying here, the problem is that your edit has none of the qualities you are referring at. No offense, but it appears very cartoonish with surreal colors and significant issues in regard to tonal transitions.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Iceland_Slides_06/

Seb

[gahspidy]

With all due respect, I am not concerned with what the current "trends" are in landscape photography. I have never been one to follow trends, I only follow my heart and my own vision. However, nothing wrong with trends and keeping up with them. I can only tell you that Sebs original post is what intrigues me and moves me the most of all the edits posted. For me, a picture can break every rule in theory and composition, and be behind the latest trends of it's genre, but if it appeals to me and moves me in some way, then i think it is successful. The stark contrasts of the dark shore against the lighted sky and reflected water is what moves me and draws me to this scene. Having exposed the details takes all that away from me and leaves me with less. But,there is no right or wrong here. btw, from what I have noticed, the latest trends seem to be selective coloring.

[readingr]

Ronnoco,

I love your ability to quote rules, trends ...

How many truly great photographers follow trends or rules for that matter. In Essence NONE. They make their own trends and rules.

Photography is not a science it is an art form and to each his own. Sebs original to me when I viewed it first was too dark and only by a smidgen. I re calibrated my monitor last night and guess what the original now is perfect. It has that mystery quality. Your rendition loses all that but gives a detailed description of the place even though the colours look wrong to me because it looks washed out.

I like J-Dogg's version with the pseudo moon light but all the mystery has gone as I can see too much detail.

So my conclusion is that each photographer will take his own version of the subject 1 subject + 20 photographers = 20 unique photographs

A photograph + 20 viewers = 20 interpretations of same photograph. Some will love it , some will like it, some will be indifferent, and some will hate it.

That is ART.

The science bit is what allows a photographer to experiment to get the photograph he wants and is the only predictable part of photography. The rest is all interpretation of a subject to convey a story.

Sorry I ramble

Seb: sorry but I now prefer the original since my monitor was recalibrate last night.

Roger

[LeeIs]

I've joined PR later than you guys and I know not to answer Ronnoco's nonsense. After all, that's all he's after. But to follow in your footsteps..

I'm no psychologist but clearly he's after some sort of recognition or acknowledgment that he is some sorta weird authority on rules and regulations pertaining to photography.

I don't know how you folks still take him seriously. He's clearly delusional.

There was tension some time before. I was sure everyone knew about this guy. How could you not? Then I go away for a bit on my holidays and by the time I get back. It's all honkey dorey with him again. That puzzled me and I thought maybe he got straightened out.

As far as his work goes it isn't something to be proud of from what I seen. Mine aren't either, but you don't see me correcting everyone around here about the bloody rules I DON'T follow. Which he does all the time. I'm not even going to go to his edits of other peoples work. All I gotta say is that he got all the edits of other people's work in his gallery. That should say something in itself. Plus those are horrid edits as he shown here in this thread. I'm a veteran of colour correction and photo editing for the past 15 years, I can tell what's been edited most times though I don't say much. But Ronnoco's edits are so horrendous that they could be done by a 1st year graphic design student that just discovered Photoshop.

If this forum is about free expression which I think it is. I just exercised my right

Ronnoco,
You critique, critique, critique with all the rules that you read or have read in some book somewhere. When are you gonna give your critical eye a chance? When are you gonna critique an image based on what you see and not what you've read?

and when are you gonna post some of those lovely by the rule shots that you've taken over the decade or so that you've been reading photography books? I also hope that you remove other people's work from your gallery here, edits or not they are NOT your work.

[freygr]

Well thanks everyone but with all due respect I think that I'll stick to my second edit.
The thing is, I captured a specific moment in time and the darkness sets the mood. To me, it's a lot about the contrast betwen the land and the bright water. If I wanted something brighter, I would have shot this scene earlier.

You might want to give a look at Michael Reichmann works. He produced higly regarded landscapes where the dark areas were truly dark (fairly darker than mine for what it worths). I do not believe that we must have details everywhere all the time.

Ronnoco, I really don't mean to be insulting but I must question the calibration of your monitor. I sincerly appreciate the effort that you put to demonstrate your vision but your edit looks heavily overdone on my hardware calibrated monitor.

best regards to all

Seb

I have to agree with you on this. Ronnoco's edit doesn't look real, it looks more like a painting.

[Ronnoco]

from what I have noticed, the latest trends seem to be selective coloring.

Actually, no, selective colouring has been around for at least 3 years, if not much longer, but if you are talking "overdone", the unnaturalness of selective colour, or perhaps the naturalness of colour in the unnaturalness of black and white, has to be handled, very carefully and creatively or it doesn't work and becomes a cliché.

Come to think of it, I have a selectively coloured print from the 1940s that my mother took.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

With all due respect, I am not concerned with what the current "trends" are in landscape photography. .

Well, if you want to work and compete in landscape photography in a large market, then you either keep up with the trends or find another career. Considering the art and graphics background of many of the photo editors in the publishing business, it is no surprise that they are leaning away from bland colour and boring "reality" toward richer colour and photos that look more like paintings. The fact that the photo magazines and books reflect this trend as well, shows how strong it is.

Of course, for pros, it is a question of whether you want to be a totally independent and emotional, starving photographer or whether you have no hesitation in experimenting with the current trends to both be financially successful as well as continue to develop your own style using new approaches.

Of course amateurs can do what they like, but to have their work taken seriously they need to be aware of the standards and trends set by the pro photography community and by those that choose work for publication and use.

Ronnoco

[J-Dogg Productions]

readingr i know what your sayin about my moon one on my monitor it looks good its just the fact my monitor is to dark im sure if i calibrated it sebs first picture would be perfect i just like my montor a little on the dark side lol personel preference. but next time i edit a picture ill be sure to calibrate first to see that it really looks like.

Jay

[J-Dogg Productions]

i actually just did calibrate my monitor and sebs 1st picture does look perfect thats what i thought mine looked like when i posted it but my monitor was to dark but any way nice shot seb