The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A Rant and a Poll

Vote for as many of these options as you want:

  • I like obviously tone-mapped images

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • I like obviously over-saturated color images

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • I like more traditional Monochrome images

    Votes: 32 69.6%
  • I like more traditionally balanced Color images

    Votes: 34 73.9%
  • I like the other extreme; obviously muted, low saturation color images

    Votes: 12 26.1%
  • I like all photographic images, so anything goes

    Votes: 9 19.6%

  • Total voters
    46

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I like to look at photographs, and do look at a lot of them online. A trend I find (very) disturbing is an almost unabashed use of tone-mapping followed by the invariable weird halos and then dirty, gritty "grunge" colors contained in same. The other trend, often (but not always) combined with the over tone-mapped look, is the enhanced saturation adjustments bordering on grotesque that often create a plethora of near-fluorescent colors in a conventional image. When the two trends are combined, the result makes my head hurt so much I find myself wanting to rip out gobs of my hair or stick needles in my eyes to make it stop. (Okay, that was an exaggeration.) I have to admit, viewing a nicely composed monochrome or normally-colorfull image has become a rare pleasure for me. (And thank heavens I still a lot of these being shared on THIS site!)

What do you think?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
lol! Most of the over-worked photos I see are poor photos anyway, regardless of the heavy-handed tone-mapping and color manipulation. :)

But I can't really choose any of these poll options without excluding at least some of the photographs I enjoy.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
It is all a matter of personal taste and choice.

Galen Rowell's images were criticized by many a while ago because he did not make images that looked like they were taken on any available films at that time.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
where would infra-red prints fit in?
I thought of that too, and couldn't figure out how to integrate them directly in this poll without making it overly complicated. My point was more about overly tone-mapped and saturated images that seem to be the rage right now.

To my thinking, most (but certainly not all) IR images are either monochromatic in nature OR muted color when false color is applied, so I figured those two existing categories would suffice. I am open to adding more options however if you have any ideas...
 
T

tokengirl

Guest
A trend I find (very) disturbing is an almost unabashed use of tone-mapping followed by the invariable weird halos and then dirty, gritty "grunge" colors contained in same. The other trend, often (but not always) combined with the over tone-mapped look, is the enhanced saturation adjustments bordering on grotesque that often create a plethora of near-fluorescent colors in a conventional image. When the two trends are combined, the result makes my head hurt so much I find myself wanting to rip out gobs of my hair or stick needles in my eyes to make it stop.
I am right there with you. To make things worse, I often see people take bad photographs and apply these techniques to them in an effort to make them into something good. Like, for example, taking an image that is a bit out of focus and applying both of these techniques to create the halos on purpose because they think it makes them look more in focus.

Oh, the horror. :wtf:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
To my thinking, most (but certainly not all) IR images are either monochromatic in nature OR muted color when false color is applied,
I respectfully disagree with that assertion, Jack.

If you use a Sony CCD for false color IR (and a suitable IR filter), you can get vibrant colored (real) IR images.

Here is an example from shot (UV induced visible light fluorescence, these are the colors visible to naked eyes) from another technique (or rather light source). No tone mapping, HDR, stacking, stitching and such post process wizadry done.


Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

How much more unnatural can you get when you compare a B&W or monochrome image to a full color one?:)
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Jack, do you remember your action that you made free for downloading some years ago for contrast masking? That's what HDR should have been, not colour on acid.

Here's an image I used your action for (tweaked) back in 2004, I remember emailing you back and forth with this image back then, arguing for the best settings, this what HDR should be used for, bringing an image back to how we viewed it, how we percieved it at the time, this is exactly how it looked that cold winter dawn.

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack, do you remember your action that you made free for downloading some years ago for contrast masking? That's what HDR should have been, not colour on acid.

Here's an image I used your action for (tweaked) back in 2004, I remember emailing you back and forth with this image back then, arguing for the best settings, this what HDR should be used for, bringing an image back to how we viewed it, how we percieved it at the time, this is exactly how it looked that cold winter dawn.

Thank you for this comment and beautiful example Ben!

Yes, I certainly agree that using HDR (or even Split ND filters) for the purpose of capturing a scene as you actually saw it is fine -- heck, it's a preferred technique to use when necessary, as in your excellent exmple.

Unfortunately, the term HDR has become intertwined with Tone Mapping, and IMO garish or heavy-handed tone mapping is the problem with the current generation of HDR "blends." As has been already said, it's even worse when heavy-handed tone mapping is applied to an otherwise ordinary (or just bad) image in an effort to turn it into something "special." Personally, I would like to see the terms and processes separated and kept distinct so we have a way to isolate what it is we don't like about a resultant image.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I respectfully disagree with that assertion, Jack.

If you use a Sony CCD for false color IR (and a suitable IR filter), you can get vibrant colored (real) IR images.
Why I said "but certainly not all" ... The reality is that humans are incapable of seeing any "color" in the IR wavelengths, so any IR image that renders color of any kind is rendering an interpolated or "false" color as respects human vision. Can be an acceptable way to render how some birds, insects or reptiles *might* see certain things though...
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
I am a victim of my own past. Working as a darkroom printer for many years left its impression. I have almost no tolerance for things as innocuous as "grain" effects on B&W conversions. I spent hundreds of hours trying to minimize grain and now people want to put it back into an image artificially? Pah! Balderdash!

On the other hand, I've caught myself at about the two-hour mark trying to make the proverbial silk purse from a sow's ear of a shot. Walk away for ten minutes and return to realize that da*n, it's still a crappy shot even with all those curves turned vertical! There's some value in the process in terms of learning, and experiments often yield unexpected mini-breakthroughs. But in the end, nothing is as pleasing to me as the subtleties of natural light well seen and elegantly captured.

I am completely happy to appreciate the joy that someone might get from a technique or process without feeling the need to do it myself. And the magic of media these days is that relief from the eye-stabbing pain of over-processed "art" is simply a click away.

But then, I'm old.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Very tough to say what I like,
It is a lot easier to say what I don't.
"HDR" if that means the usual haloed thing that you see from time to time; put that in my hate column.
But as a photographer I have used about every technique known to man to map toned from one place to another. That is pretty much all we do, and we work hard all the time to do it well. It all depends on the result.
-bob

some folks always printed on number three paper LOL
 

DavidL

New member
After years of supplying images to clients, I've done little or nothing for myself. I'm now enjoying the concept of "Lucy in the sky" again. No diamonds just fun.
All done with a unchemically altered mind. If I could have done this in the 60's - 70's I'd have done a lot of LP sleeves.
So it's fine "Whatever gets you through the night is all right" in my book. As long as it doesn't hurt other beings.
So I hope your eyes aren't offended ;)
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I don't think people can handle the truth...-
Good point.

I think one issue I face is that the type of image most photographers prefer may not be the same type that most of my prospective customers prefer...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm not a big fan of heavy manipulation although I am a fan of working a image to get the most from it. Maybe easier said if it don't look real it bugs me. But each his own and it does depend on the image content as well and maybe the most important aspect of it.
 
Top