Tom Till's Mea Culpa

The latest edition of Outdoor Photographer magazine has an article from Tom Till in which he acknowledges crossing the boundaries regarding the over the top HDR processing that he has indulged himself in during the past couple of years. I think it took a certain amount of courage to write this article.
Most photographers who were inspired by Till's past work (myself included) took note of this practice and were saddened, while his social media sycophants ('friends') fawned and raved over his every image, which distorted his perspective.
An interesting read from a fine photographer!

Yup, I read that myself and was quite surprised reading it. Although, art is up for interpretation whether the colors are way over the top. Some people like that, as evidence by his success. I've been known to really boost colors in my images, but only once in a while do I purposely go overboard.

John I read the article and yes, a big high five to Tom for speaking to his use of HDR. Plus, his hdr use isn't the kind that goes unnoticeable, for the most part, it's a certain accentuated HDR. A few months ago I visited his lovely art gallery on Moab and his lead image into his gallery was a freaky looking HDR image that certainly appeared over the top for my tastes. Just goes to show that HDR sells.

Definitely a great article in seeing him admit his bad transition to HDR. I think he still skirted what I see to be the biggest issue with his HDR images: The funky haloing and garish local contrast. The over-saturation of color was definitely part of the problem but he didn't address that his whole HDR process was flawed. I have no problem with HDR when done right, he just wasn't doing it right. When I visit his gallery I'm in love with his film images and sickened by most of his digital ones. I've also seen things such as large and quite visible dust spots on the middle of his prints. He is an extremely talented photographer and I hope to see his art return to the quality level of his previous film work.

A great read for anyone that works with digital imaging. I, for one, was deeply saddened by the garish quality of Tom's digital images and I was quite vocal about it, even blogging about it. Reading such a humbling self deprecating article has also humbled me. I'm hopeful that my next trip to his gallery will be rewarded by the Tom Till images we've all admired in the past.

Thanks for the link, John. A good read and cautionary tale.

I'm so glad to hear that Tom has reconsidered his processing.
As Jason points out, saturation is only ONE, and probably least important, of his processing issues.

When I first saw Tom's garish HDR images hanging next to his classic LF prints, I was shocked and saddened.
It was hard to believe the prints were made by the same person !!

I'll paraphrase the comment I left on the OP site here: I think Tom absolutely hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "The worst part is that when I capture legitimately saturated color now, I have a hard time convincing viewers that it's real." I think landscape photographers are in danger of shooting themselves in the foot when they hype the color or otherwise manipulate the image so extravagantly that the image no longer looks real. I'll bet everyone will agree that the presence of the moon in Ansel Adams' "Moonrise Over Hernandez" makes it a better photo than it would be without the moon. Many photographers today seem to be making the mistake of thinking, "gee, if one moon is good, two moons must be better." In the film era, I think most people looked at a good landscape image and thought, "What a beautiful world we live in!" Now I think many people look at a good landscape image and think, "Wow, that guy really knows Photoshop!" Is this change in public perception (if indeed it's occuring) one important reason why print sales are down for virtually every landscape photographer I know? Clearly the economy is a huge factor, but I suspect it's not the only one.

Glenn, I don't see this issue impacting print sales to the general public. Tom noted that his customers and stock agencies actually liked the style by supporting it with sales. I suspect it took him this long to reevaluate his processing because of all that positive feedback.

"Clearly the economy is a huge factor, but I suspect it's not the only one."

You're right. The sheer number of talented landscape photographers that has virtually exploded over the last several years have flooded the market with some mighty beautiful images. That, and the lack of discretionary income are the two biggest reasons for print sale declines, IMO.

I would agree with John that the sheer number of photographers entering into the professional market has affected sales...some talented, some not so much. As a studio owner since the early 1980's professional photography has been my only means of lively hood... and it has been a good one. Luckily I am semi retired and do landscape more for personal satisfaction than money. As the digital age progressed, cameras, computers, etc became less expensive there has been a overwhelming influx of people into the profession, mostly part timers charging little for their work and unwillling to learn technique as well as any business accuman. The results has been a devaluation of photography in so far as profession is concerned...many excellent portrait photographers are now out of the business and commercial photography has long since ceased to be a full time career with a few exceptions. Professional Landscape work has always been a very small niche, but, some of the greatest photographers of all time have resided here. Is this any reason to stamp your foot or pound your fist and yell, no, no, unfair. Hardley. It is what it is....times change with technology.
What I do notice in the landscape world (and I have only be here a short while) is unlike the portrait world, part timers make up the solid ground....they are extremely knowledgable and produce work as good as many of the professionals. In fact, Im not sure what criteria you use anymore to classify one as a professional. The fact remains, though, that print sales with probably keep sliding lower with market saturation....just the law of markets.

Okay, at the risk of beating a dead horse, two quick comments: first, Tom said that "some" of his stock clients and "a large portion" of the public prefer highly saturated images, not all. Second, and more important, look at the implication of Tom's comment about the difficulty these days of persuading people that highly saturated color is real. I don't remember anyone questioning my color was I was making prints in a wet darkroom from 4x5 color negatives, and yes, some of those prints were highly saturated (flowers and fall colors in particular). I do think people are more skeptical now than they were then about the authenticity of photographs, and I do think that has an impact on sales. I've always agreed, however, that the economy and the sheer glut of readily available high-quality images are major factors as well in the difficulty virtually all photographers seem to be facing.

I work in Moab a lot with my photo tour business. For the past 4 years 100% of my clients there who visited Tom's gallery at night came out talking about how drastically over-saturated everything was. I've seen a difference there this year and it does appear ge's gotten the message. I thought his magazine cover a few months ago with this article was one of the worst ever.