Some recent AK photo's (Palmer, Flat: effective, live, business)

[AADAD]

Fierce and Wild. Sweet.

[Nephler]

Couple more from yesterdays drive out the Glenn.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Nephler

Couple more from yesterdays drive out the Glenn.

Ed, I rarely ever comment on other peoples pictures, but this one is just so exquisite that I can't resist! This particular image approaches Ansel Adams style and deserves a lot more attention than just the usual "great picture" comments.

It has compositional characteristics that make it stand out from other similar images. The dynamic range is wide, but is dominated by the brightest and the darkest areas. Juxtaposing three basic layers, the clouded sky that is not really white above the mountains, with the darker than it probably actually was foreground is attractive.

But notice that each of those three layers is also more or less divided into three layers of tonal brightness too! Layered layers of tonal brightness...

There are other characteristics that are not intrinsic to the image, but rather are processing options and as such might differ depending on who sets the software configuration to generate the JPEG image. Some of those choices in this particular image would probably be different if I did them, or if some other person did them, as opposed to what you have chosen. I'll resist commenting on those because it is a matter of style. I tend to admire it whenever I see a distinct style, because it usually indicates (even if I don't like the effect) that someone knows what they are doing and accomplishes it on purpose (which requires skill and talent as opposed to luck).

Adams said, on several occasions actually, that the negative was the score and the print an individual performance (of which there could be many, and each would be different, and still good). I think what you've posted is a very nice performance of your score. I think that score itself is innately fabulous.

[Nephler]

Thank you very much Floyd.

Just about every time I'm out shooting, I'm experimenting with different settings. Some work, most don't. The hardest for me is during processing, I'm red / green color blind, and I tend to over process. Though this time I went back to what had worked for me about 1 year ago, both in shooting and post process.

You're right, everyone has their own style and taste. If we didn't, things would become quite boring.

[tigre79]

You know, I never considered how colorblindness would affect a photographer. Your photos are very distinct though. I don't know if it's your camera or your processing but your skies are always very vivid, trending toward a lavender tone. I must say though, your Sheep Mountain shot is my favorite of this set.

[Nephler]

I have my proof setup in Photoshop to color blindness then Protanopia-type. This may account for the lavender tone in the skies, not sure. Though it looks better to me setup that way.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Nephler

Thank you very much Floyd.

Just about every time I'm out shooting, I'm experimenting with different settings. Some work, most don't. The hardest for me is during processing, I'm red / green color blind, and I tend to over process. Though this time I went back to what had worked for me about 1 year ago, both in shooting and post process.

That might explain something that has always been of interest to me in your images. The problem for me is that I don't want to be critical of someone else's style, so I've never said anything about it. To my taste you over sharpen virtually everything. I find the excess high frequency spatial detail to be distracting, and particularly so in the foreground (rocks, branches, etc) of landscapes (where I don't much like foreground detail to begin with). But I noticed also that you were clearly doing post processing, that the sharpening numbers shown in the Exif data were not necessarily always the same... which to me meant it was on purpose and that you are consistent probably because you are doing it exactly that way with intent!

I don't know, but it is very possible that "I'm red / green color blind, and I tend to over process." literally means you might see that detail very differently than I see that detail?

That makes it something I'm not too shy to ask about. I'd be very interested in what your intent is, and how you grade it, when it comes to sharpening???

[Edit: I noticed after posting that, that none of the images in the series you've just posted were what I would consider "over" sharpened. Is the change an artifact of "going back" to the older set of defaults, or something you intentionally changed? Whatever... I like it.]

You're right, everyone has their own style and taste. If we didn't, things would become quite boring.

Really boring!

I'm impressed when I see a consistent style showing up, but I'm not affected much when I don't see that. Lots of people just love taking pictures and showing them to other people. Thank goodness for that! I'm super critical about my own photography, but I just love looking at all sorts of pictures and don't much care what the "quality" is. I have to warn people that if they show me their vacation pictures... I will bore them half to death before we are done!

[Nephler]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

I don't know, but it is very possible that "I'm red / green color blind, and I tend to over process." literally means you might see that detail very differently than I see that detail?

That makes it something I'm not too shy to ask about. I'd be very interested in what your intent is, and how you grade it, when it comes to sharpening???

[Edit: I noticed after posting that, that none of the images in the series you've just posted were what I would consider "over" sharpened. Is the change an artifact of "going back" to the older set of defaults, or something you intentionally changed? Whatever... I like it.]

The problem I run into is the difference between what I see before saving to JPG. The image is crisp, but not overly done, until saved to JPG. Not sure what happens, but the image becomes over done.

To simply answer your question, yes, going back to older settings seems to have resolved most the over processing.
I'm constantly experimenting with new, old, and different combinations, on camera and after, to get what I like.

Thanks again Floyd, I enjoy constructive criticism. It helps one grow and improve.

[Nephler]

One more photo just to keep on topic...Photos.
Though I do enjoy discussing the images.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Nephler

Thanks again Floyd, I enjoy constructive criticism. It helps one grow and improve.

I'm not so sure about that... :-)

It's the "criticism" of the image that I try to avoid. In this forum or on other forums dedicated to photography alone, when someone asks for just C&C, I don't respond. That is because it implies that my idea of a good image is somehow more valid than their idea, or the next person's idea. That's not a good concept for photography.

But, when someone says, "Hey, I want my picture to be more (or less or whatever) of this or that, if I know how to make it what they want I'll expend a lot of effort trying to explain how that is done. (You'll get both the rote/note and indepth answers, and can ignore either or both.)

Hence when asked if an image is sharpened correctly, my answer is "Do you like it?". If asked how to sharpen an image I have been known to write some rather long and detailed tutorials about image sharpening.

If you, or anyone else for that matter, are interested in sharpening and for example why it might look one way when initially done and then seem to be either more or less intensive when viewed as a "final" product... start a different thread and specifically ask that question. I can probably "fix" the problem, either with a few by rote and by note workflow instructions, or with an in depth understanding of what sharpening is and why it works this way or that way. (You'll get both the rote/note and indepth answer, and can choose to ignore one, or both.)