Posted by Paul Duval on October 10, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Most of us camera jockeys film or digital are happy to bring back just one or two really outstanding images from a trip, but once again thanks to Preston for choosing the first weekend in October for the CANP gathering. Now I have enough images to process to keep me busy for months. Everything I planned before leaving Long Beach bore delicious fruit. These are the places I hit in order Friday, Amazing Sunset just outside of Mojave on 14. Saturday great cloud play on Lone Pine peak, Whitney and Williamson after breakfast, storms and filtered light in the Patriarch grove in the afternoon. Sunday amazing sunrise with rainbow in the butter milks, then a light show at north Lake and wonderful conditions along upper North Fork and the icing was the rainbow at Mono after the gathering ( which was great and exciting "riot at the pumps"). Monday burst upon on us like a clap of thunder and then there was snow in the high country with color. First image is from Gathering morning in the buttermilks the famous "billboard" hill. which I have affectionately named Galen's Hill. Second image was taken with the crowd at the outlet end of North lake on the same monring.
Just an amazing weekend
Paul
Posted by Paul Duval on October 10, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Unusual and interesting work
How did the areas of pic one turn out so gold? It looks like gold lava.
Posted by Eric Good on October 12, 2010 at 1:13 PM
I said the same thing to Steve and Chris that weekend in terms of keepers. Normally one or two keepers from a particular outing is good for me, but that was a great weekend that should produce quite a few good images.
Posted by David Senesac on October 12, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Another unnatural rendering of many I regularly see on this board though rarely bother to comment on. I've been visiting the Peabody bouldering area out on that dirt road for decades. That blazing golden hill is simply bizarre. Light down in that zone never really gets even alpen-glow like because it is down near the bottom of the Owens Valley which is blocked by the White Mountains and light enhancement from cloud underlighting simply can't be anywhere near that bright. The best light is always going to be up at the Sierra Crest areas in the distance that are above the White crest elevations when one has backpacked up there to be really at close distance at sunrise in direct clear dry air front lighting and even up there your rendering would be excessive.
David
http://www.davidsenesac.com
Posted by Paul Duval on October 12, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Well, sorry to say David this isn't reflected light from clouds in this area of the buttermilks it's direct sunlight from an opening above the Whites just under the cloud deck and I actually toned down the glow from the image, and as far a "unnatural" is concerned every image ever posted here is unnatural because a camera film or digital does not record an image the way our eyes and brain do.Take any image back to where you took it and it won't look the same ever. Galen Rowell spent decades out in this area as well and only once caught similar light under similar conditions I consider myself extremely lucky to have caught it under these conditions.Remember the billboard advertising the Mountain Light gallery that lit up hill is the same one. It's unfortunate that you missed this morning because it was quite the light show. I'd hide and not be adamant in my defense but I barely processed this out of the Nikon and did more toning down than being excessive. Sorry you dislike it so much that you were compelled to comment, well actually it was more of a lecture, David. You weren't standing next to me as this was occurring, and you are incorrect about direct light not hitting this hill.
Sincerely,
Paul
Posted by David Senesac on October 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM
Paul, excuse me for the vagueness but my terse statement wasn't to mean it was reflected light but rather at sunrise when alpenglow is usually hitting the top of Basin Mountain in the background that kind of light can only be reflected light. Here in direct light as you correctly indicated maybe an hour after astronomical sunrise, light can only be from when the sun is at a higher azimuth above the Whites crest thus is never going to be golden yellow as rendered regardless of phenomenon in the atmosphere.
Your statement about what is unnatural and how camera's never record reality is the same flawed argument that has regularly been tossed out for years. Flawed because it reasons if fidelity isn't perfect then it can't be considered natural. Well to think black and white so is flawed because natural photography is not about being perfect but rather merely being reasonably good representations. If reasonably people judging images can agree a photograph is a reasonably good visual two dimensional framed representation of a subject captured, then that is something of worthwhile value in the essence of what photography can be about if so desired. Such has always been the case for the graphic content of photographs and a reason photographs have long been used in courtrooms etc. Visual moments captured in time.
As to Galen Rowell's image, I'm looking at the image you are referring to that is on pages 188 and 189 of Mountain Light and explained on page 187 that includes in the first paragraph "An hour after sunrise" and describes it as warm golden light. However it is in no way so saturated or bright. First saw that print in his epic exhibit at California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and also in his Bishop gallery. His image is very reasonably rendered naturally and is not at all like you have posted. Please look at it yourself.
It isn't that I dislike your image specifically and this is nothing at all personal Paul but rather am disappointed that so many serious landscape photographers on this board and a list of others continue to regularly post such exaggerated renditions without any explanation while few other senior members do anything but stroke posters that only tends to encourage others, especially the many new photographers flooding the artform and lurking here that such is to be imitated in order to be congratulated and successful. Actually on NPN one is more likely to see at least some reasonable constructive criticism versus other boards ie Fred Miranda for example. But there are many images posted, especially on ES&S with lists of one liner strokes that reflect what many critics complain about say with HDR and other digital excesses of this decade.
David Senesac
http://www.davidsenesac.com
Posted by Paul Duval on October 13, 2010 at 8:24 AM
David,
A very kind, thoughtful considerate response, your taking the high ground as a "purist" which is a personal choice and your obviously passionate about it. Which I can admire, however with a background as a painter think "Bierstadt" and all of the words and opinions given about how we "visualize" the final image and making it represent our vision. This was my vision and I have other images from the same day and also from a different camera where the hill is not so illuminated or golden in color. However at this time under the conditions, which I will probably never see again as Galen also lamented in the short dissertation on his image this is my take on that morning at that frozen moment in time. I have the book mountain light and it is rather dogeared from my constant reading of it, and I have seen the image in the gallery I try to visit every time I'm there. I like the image very much and I wondered though how it could have been so bright ( I know now it can happen ) because I had never seen it before personally. Will any viewers of my image consider it as an representational ( as seen by our eyes and processed by our brain ) probably not I'm not a documentary photographer. I do post process images. Some to match my vision and others to correct limitations of film ( high dynamic contrast images such as the golden hill). I don't do HDR or blending of multiple exposures. Once again thanks, and I do appreciate what your saying you just picked this image to make your "stand" on the state of "images" and the general level of "color enhancement" going on here and on the ESS gallery or any other for that matter. If I had to personally categorize Galen(s) body of work and he has been "accused" of "oversaturation" on one of this sites discussion forums ( partly due to his use of transparencies and low ISO film ) I wouldn't consider him a documentary photographer either, he was rather a interpretational "artistic" photographer.
David thanks again,
Our opinions are different but I'm totally fine with that.
It's yet another "purist" vs. "artist" argument....philospohically similar to the realists vs the idealists. I have to ask - who cares? If an image appears unnatural, so what? It isn't for everyone, sure. But photographs aren't for everyone - they're for a target audience. Some love the artistic take (myself included), others prefer a "realistic" rendition. Why go on with the pretense that somehow all photographers strive, or should strive, to capture "reality"? The only statement that reasonable people ought to agree on is that it is the photographer's choice to render an image anyway he pleases, as long as he is honest to himself and to his audience about his intentions in rendering that image. So if the photographer says he was going for a "realistic" look, his audience can judge whether or not he has attained his goal - this is of course not to say there is any objective "truth" in their conclusions. It is always easier to say you went for an artistic look, in which case nobody ought to be concerned with how "natural" it looks.
David and Paul - you both quoted Galen's image in the Buttermilks. Well, that may have been one of the few "natural" images he printed - the vast majority of his iconic images are so ridiculously over-saturated and over-filtered (he loved his GNDs!) no serious person could think that he did not have an artistic eye to "visualization" and capturing the scene. I love his work, his was the work that inspired me to get into photography - but I don't for a minute think his images are natural - and I don't care about that.
Here's what I find disturbing about the debate - it seems to me that the "artists" don't go around telling photographers "your images are too natural - goose the saturation/contrast/curves until you hit clip the channels in your color space". But every now and again there's a "purist" who complains about how things are getting out of hand, that photographers are being dishonest, and now David - you're actually suggesting that the "artists" are setting a bad example for new photographers! That I frankly find to be somewhere between silly and offensive! If it is true that the images that get the most encouraging feedback happen to be the ones that are the most "unnatural", then it merely reflects the tastes of the folks here on ESS. So what? If the majority of people really did want "realistic" images, wouldn't those be the ones receiving the most praise? At any rate, this shouldn't be some sort of "marketplace" of opinions/tastes where any particular one "wins". To each his own. As for your discussion on B&W, are you seriously saying that there isn't a ton of manipulation done on those? If I were a "purist" I'd say that the only way to capure B&W is w/o filters or tonal manipulations so that if I run a B/W to color conversion software program, the colors coming out of that are completely "natural". This is patently absurd. B/W images are more manipulated than most, and don't remotely convey reality. Thhey're incredibly good at conveying drama and connecting emotionally with the viewer - why can't that be done with color images?
Posted by David Senesac on October 13, 2010 at 1:46 PM
Thanks Paul, I think we understand where we both stand. What bothers me enough to sometimes publicly criticize such images is when not only is an image an unnatural artistic rendering that isn't explained in any way but when a landscape or nature photographer describes or infers in some way an image represents what actually occurred. I have no issue with Galen's print because he clearly explained what he did and in this case as anyone can see in the book, his rendering is considerably more subdued. And as I have written at length, I have no issue with those that present enhanced/manipulated or in their mind's eye images as long as they are up front and honest at least in some small way to their public audience.
I won't get into the 'reality vs. artistic rendering' argument but I will make a comment about the two images Paul posted in this thread.
On the first one: I have been to this area many, many times, both as a climber and photographer. One day, I was headed up there to go climbing and the light was very similar to that of the image. It was stunning! The conditiions under which this occurred were exactly as Paul described.
In this image, as posted, I feel the blues in the sky are bit too saturated. I also feel that the brightness of the Billboard and its saturation are too neon looking. The bright light on the hill draws my eye to the right so that I miss out on the nice details elsewhere in this nicely composed image. Paul, I think you did a pretty good job handling the extreme dynamic range.
On the second image: I like the composition; it has a nice balance. I do feel that the trees on the lake's margin are overdone. In my opinion, they are too bright, and there is a significant cyan/green cast. They also appear to be overexposed because there is little detail in brightest area near the middle.
I believe both images have great potential for a nice print, but I think they need more adjustments. These kinds of high contrast scenes (both in terms of color and tone) can be very challenging, but deserve our attention since they do resonate with ourselves, and others,
--P
Posted by David Senesac on October 14, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Kartik, unfortunately every time I comment on such issues as a matter of considerate thread terseness, it would be out of place to fully explain my positions. But you would gain some understanding of my own position on these matters by going over:
I'm not going to hijack this thread responding to your input but if you wish to post something on these matters over in Hot Topics, I would and in fact have made considerable input in older debates on this board if you search in the archives.
Posted by Steve Sieren on October 15, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Here is a raw file from the area with somewhat similar lighting. It has a curves adjustment and landscape sort of auto punch for contrast to bring back the contrast from my zero settings. The light is there to create a contrasty image or to make it flatter and more neutral. At the least, I like to emphasize what the light is doing and decide what to do with the different white balances inside of the scene.
Discussion
12 repliesJust an amazing weekend
Paul
Paul
How did the areas of pic one turn out so gold? It looks like gold lava.
David
http://www.davidsenesac.com
Sincerely,
Paul
Your statement about what is unnatural and how camera's never record reality is the same flawed argument that has regularly been tossed out for years. Flawed because it reasons if fidelity isn't perfect then it can't be considered natural. Well to think black and white so is flawed because natural photography is not about being perfect but rather merely being reasonably good representations. If reasonably people judging images can agree a photograph is a reasonably good visual two dimensional framed representation of a subject captured, then that is something of worthwhile value in the essence of what photography can be about if so desired. Such has always been the case for the graphic content of photographs and a reason photographs have long been used in courtrooms etc. Visual moments captured in time.
As to Galen Rowell's image, I'm looking at the image you are referring to that is on pages 188 and 189 of Mountain Light and explained on page 187 that includes in the first paragraph "An hour after sunrise" and describes it as warm golden light. However it is in no way so saturated or bright. First saw that print in his epic exhibit at California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and also in his Bishop gallery. His image is very reasonably rendered naturally and is not at all like you have posted. Please look at it yourself.
It isn't that I dislike your image specifically and this is nothing at all personal Paul but rather am disappointed that so many serious landscape photographers on this board and a list of others continue to regularly post such exaggerated renditions without any explanation while few other senior members do anything but stroke posters that only tends to encourage others, especially the many new photographers flooding the artform and lurking here that such is to be imitated in order to be congratulated and successful. Actually on NPN one is more likely to see at least some reasonable constructive criticism versus other boards ie Fred Miranda for example. But there are many images posted, especially on ES&S with lists of one liner strokes that reflect what many critics complain about say with HDR and other digital excesses of this decade.
David Senesac
http://www.davidsenesac.com
A very kind, thoughtful considerate response, your taking the high ground as a "purist" which is a personal choice and your obviously passionate about it. Which I can admire, however with a background as a painter think "Bierstadt" and all of the words and opinions given about how we "visualize" the final image and making it represent our vision. This was my vision and I have other images from the same day and also from a different camera where the hill is not so illuminated or golden in color. However at this time under the conditions, which I will probably never see again as Galen also lamented in the short dissertation on his image this is my take on that morning at that frozen moment in time. I have the book mountain light and it is rather dogeared from my constant reading of it, and I have seen the image in the gallery I try to visit every time I'm there. I like the image very much and I wondered though how it could have been so bright ( I know now it can happen ) because I had never seen it before personally. Will any viewers of my image consider it as an representational ( as seen by our eyes and processed by our brain ) probably not I'm not a documentary photographer. I do post process images. Some to match my vision and others to correct limitations of film ( high dynamic contrast images such as the golden hill). I don't do HDR or blending of multiple exposures. Once again thanks, and I do appreciate what your saying you just picked this image to make your "stand" on the state of "images" and the general level of "color enhancement" going on here and on the ESS gallery or any other for that matter. If I had to personally categorize Galen(s) body of work and he has been "accused" of "oversaturation" on one of this sites discussion forums ( partly due to his use of transparencies and low ISO film ) I wouldn't consider him a documentary photographer either, he was rather a interpretational "artistic" photographer.
David thanks again,
Our opinions are different but I'm totally fine with that.
Paul
David and Paul - you both quoted Galen's image in the Buttermilks. Well, that may have been one of the few "natural" images he printed - the vast majority of his iconic images are so ridiculously over-saturated and over-filtered (he loved his GNDs!) no serious person could think that he did not have an artistic eye to "visualization" and capturing the scene. I love his work, his was the work that inspired me to get into photography - but I don't for a minute think his images are natural - and I don't care about that.
Here's what I find disturbing about the debate - it seems to me that the "artists" don't go around telling photographers "your images are too natural - goose the saturation/contrast/curves until you hit clip the channels in your color space". But every now and again there's a "purist" who complains about how things are getting out of hand, that photographers are being dishonest, and now David - you're actually suggesting that the "artists" are setting a bad example for new photographers! That I frankly find to be somewhere between silly and offensive! If it is true that the images that get the most encouraging feedback happen to be the ones that are the most "unnatural", then it merely reflects the tastes of the folks here on ESS. So what? If the majority of people really did want "realistic" images, wouldn't those be the ones receiving the most praise? At any rate, this shouldn't be some sort of "marketplace" of opinions/tastes where any particular one "wins". To each his own. As for your discussion on B&W, are you seriously saying that there isn't a ton of manipulation done on those? If I were a "purist" I'd say that the only way to capure B&W is w/o filters or tonal manipulations so that if I run a B/W to color conversion software program, the colors coming out of that are completely "natural". This is patently absurd. B/W images are more manipulated than most, and don't remotely convey reality. Thhey're incredibly good at conveying drama and connecting emotionally with the viewer - why can't that be done with color images?
David
On the first one: I have been to this area many, many times, both as a climber and photographer. One day, I was headed up there to go climbing and the light was very similar to that of the image. It was stunning! The conditiions under which this occurred were exactly as Paul described.
In this image, as posted, I feel the blues in the sky are bit too saturated. I also feel that the brightness of the Billboard and its saturation are too neon looking. The bright light on the hill draws my eye to the right so that I miss out on the nice details elsewhere in this nicely composed image. Paul, I think you did a pretty good job handling the extreme dynamic range.
On the second image: I like the composition; it has a nice balance. I do feel that the trees on the lake's margin are overdone. In my opinion, they are too bright, and there is a significant cyan/green cast. They also appear to be overexposed because there is little detail in brightest area near the middle.
I believe both images have great potential for a nice print, but I think they need more adjustments. These kinds of high contrast scenes (both in terms of color and tone) can be very challenging, but deserve our attention since they do resonate with ourselves, and others,
--P
http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html
I'm not going to hijack this thread responding to your input but if you wish to post something on these matters over in Hot Topics, I would and in fact have made considerable input in older debates on this board if you search in the archives.