Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Tim Knutson wrote:
Exactly.!!
This is not a contest to re-create reality. You are obviously good enough to produce some very nice stuff. If you like how you've presented this comp, f everybody else. Make yourself happy.
That said, I think the rock would print a little dark.
Nice shot.
For what it is worth...
This is an important issue here for sure. Although I agree that our art form is open to creative interpretation, there is still the issue of the fundamentals of "good art." The tough thing is that a lot of it is very subjective. As just one example I see a lot of images on the net with way overdone blues skies. Sometimes, it may be that the images are just over saturated and could certainly be pulled back a bit. But one time I was giving some feedback to someone about their grossly overdone blues in their work, and they said that is the way they like it! Years later now, that person still does their blues very, very intense (totally unnatural) and some love it and some hate it... It really is their style. In that case, it is how they like it and it is a simple issue of individual taste or preference. Another example may be Milkyways. For years Milkyways have been treated extremely hyper in my estimation. I thought it was cool at first when our cameras could pick up far more detail than our eyes could see. But then as this became an extremely popular fad I tired of it rather quickly. I am NOT making a judgement here, I am only talking about my own particular taste. Lately, I have come to like something in between the way over cooked Milkyways popular today, and "reality." But I recognize that is only my individual taste. So, sometimes these things are very hard to critique because we all have quite different tastes! Yet, when we give feedback (like if I point out the color intensity in a blue sky, or the over done dodging, orton and colorizing in a Milkyway) it might be legitimate, and the image may benefit from the feedback of pulling back a bit. Because of this difficulty of individual interpretation, I tend to usually say something like:
"If it were mine, I might be tempted to..." So, what I am really saying is: "If you respect my work and eye, this is what I see, or this is how I might do it. This is my 2 cents..."
I remember when I posted my rainbow over Crater Lake image ("Spelbound") shot during an insanely blazing pink sunset with a strike of lightning. Some were convinced that the image was too saturated, some argued that it was not saturated enough, and others said it was perfect. If we are on carefully calibrated monitors (and accurately rendering browsers) and we take everyone's feedback into careful consideration and learn everything we can from it, and re evaluate our image very carefully, at some point, like you said, you have to ultimately please yourself.
But, as much as that is true I also believe it very important to take into account what others see. Sometimes, over time, their opinions pan out to be true (you look back at your image and think "wow, they were right"). But often the opposite can be true. For me, I take it all in, and learn as much as it as I can from it. But when in doubt I refer to my favorite photographers opinions the most. I remember years ago someone here giving me intense flack about my processing and even emailing me personally about it. I ended up cutting it off by replying, "the degree that I respect your work, is the same degree I respect your feedback about my work." I think he may have got the point.  Although I like all kinds of viable styles in photography, I have a type that resonates most with me. We all do. So, it is those who also do that style, in excellence, that I will values opinion the most. Then at some point after all the feedback, we have to decide what makes us happy...
As for the issue of dark prints... I never judge web images for print, since they are such radically different outputs. All images calibrated for web display at a general industry standard of 2.2 Gamma, 6500 White Point and most importantly about 130 candelas (CD or "brightness") should look rather grossly dark for print. This is always an issue. Unusual I know, but in my own personal workflow I go as far as re processing most of my work from scratch, for critical print. What has been tried and true has been calibrating somewhere between 60-70CD (candelas) and soft proofing to the specific paper/printer icc profile from the start, in Raw, all the way through and also working on a white background.
|
