I know there are lots of “purists” out there, and that’s okay. Often my preference is also a natural looking image. But sometimes I feel that an image needs to be played with a little in post-processing before it gets the feeling that I want to convey.
For example, take this image I made in the cypress swamp in Everglades National Park. (Click the image to view a larger version.)
It is a magical place, you feel like you are in a different world here. But the lighting is difficult with the sun shining through the trees contrasting with deep shade and the black water. Composition can be difficult too with the mess of leaves and trees.
I decided to try a black and white conversion to see if removing colour from the scene gives it the mysterious feeling I had at the time.
I actually think that made it more complicated because it is harder to distinguish between the elements in the scene. It’s still not as mysterious as it was in person. It needs to be simplified even further.
I tried a filter in Nik Color Efex Pro which removes much of the colour from the scene, leaving only a hint of sepia, and adds a blur vignette around the edges. This one more closely matches the feeling of the place. You really don’t know what you are getting into by walking in here.
I still want to play around with this image more to see what else I can create with it. For me, this is what is the most fun about digital photography.
What do you think about these three images? I would really like to hear which one you prefer and why.
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your interesting post.
I’m a purist only in the sense that I like to know what went into making a photo, usually. To use a slightly extreme example, I’d want to know if the photographer had inserted an image of a python from the zoo into their Everglades swamp photos. Not because I care if someone wants to do that, but because I don’t want to be misinformed about what the Everglades is like… there may be pythons, but are they common enough most people will see them on a brief stroll? But you weren’t really asking about that!
I like both your experiments. Especially like elements of the 1st and 3rd images (the bromeliads really stand out well), but overall I’d choose the 1st in part because the openings to the sky are more obvious and a nice visual relief from the somewhat claustrophobic trunks and bromeliads. In any event, all your photos make me want to see the Everglades first hand.
Snowy
Hi Snowy,Thank you very much for your great feedback on my images. I agree that a composite image should be disclosed as such. It is so much fun to play around in post-processing with all the different plug-ins and photoshop features that are out there. I think I could work on the same image for a week just trying different things. Hey, that’s not a bad idea … I highly recommend the everglades. I really enjoyed it.
Not much of a purist, m’se’f. Well, there are lines I won’t cross, like inserting a moon where no moon was, or Snowy’s example of a python in the Everglades. (Yes, there are pythons in the Everglades due to folks buying them, and then releasing them because they’ve gotten too big to keep BTW. It’s a problem.)
But this is not only acceptable, it is a stellar example of creative post processing IMO. It does convey a sense of mystery, so much so that I started looking for a python in the dense growth!
You’re having a wonderful time, I can tell. You sure you don’t want to make a side trip to Missouri? There are some spectacular springs up here in the Ozarks!
All the best,
Edie
Hi Edie! Thanks for your comments. I go back and forth on being a purist. I guess that makes me not a purist. Sometimes I like a natural looking image and sometimes I like to create artistic effects. I think if the end result conveyed the sense of mystery I was going for then I achieved my goal. I am having a wonderful time and seeing so many amazing things. I’m afraid we won’t be going to Missouri only because we are pretty much following the coastline around clockwise. There are so many things to see. But thank you so much for the invitation!! I would really love to come and visit with you some time or maybe our paths will cross in Yosemite. When you are going back? We will probably go through there in May.
Great post Anne. I like your procession of thoughts and ideas in arriving to what I think is the right result.
As far as purists, I am a believer that they try to push their personal likes and dislikes on others. I believe that photography is art and that the photographer should follow his or her creative process. Some will like it, others will not. That’s why it is art.
Here here!! Well said Len, thanks for your comments!
I completely agree Anne. Photography is art first and foremost and the tools we have today in the digital age are just different versions of what artists have used for centuries.
Ansel Adams worked on some of his images his entire life, trying to bring out the best “performance” as he liked to call his prints. I’m going through a similar process with my images from Europe, where I’m finding that many hidden gems just waiting to make an appearance with the right treatment.
Hi Russ, that’s a great point about how Ansel Adams worked on some of his images for life. Sometimes we are in such a rush to pick the best out of of hundreds of shots and process it in less than 2 minutes that I think we overlook some potential in the images that get put aside. Thank you very much for your comments.
I really like the color Anne. One of the things we can be absolutely sure of is that God didn’t make us live in a dull and lifeless world. Your capture beautifully shows some of that majesty without having huge canyons or tall mountains. In case you didn’t notice, I’m a color kind of guy. Another stunning photo.
Hi Joe! I like colour too. Usually my images are full of colour and I sometimes wonder if I should desaturate them! Thank you very much for your feedback, it is good to find out what is behind people’s preferences in art.
I enjoy all three but the final sepia toned image works at capturing the “mystery” factor for two reasons ( in my mind).
1) The sepia tone gives it an older,aged feel that suggests a more “wild” place from another era.
2) The lack of the blue sky obscures the depth of his thicket and makes it seem “deeper” than it does in color. Deeper woods = spookier & scarier 🙂
Thanks for sharing your thought processes!
Hi John, thank you so much for your feedback! I’m really glad you like the final image and I really appreciate your articulating why you like it. I couldn’t write it as well as you did but your reasoning is exactly why I went in that direction.
Nice experiments, Anne. While I agree that the final sepia tone image is more mysterious, I still strongly prefer the color image. The green grass-like leaves growing on the brown tufts of leaves from year(s) past illustrate the age and annual renewal of the swamp, seasons following seasons even in the timeless swamp. That is lost in monochrome. I think the bright blue sky contrasts nicely with the dark water. But… Perhaps the bright lichen patch on the bark of the big tree on the left is visually distracting even though it is botanically interesting.
I find the fade-to-white across the top of the final sepia image a little distracting… but I didn’t notice it right away. It might work better if the foreground trees, especially the one with the dark trunk, could be exempted from that effect.
But please take my comments with a grain of salt. I’m not your editor! Editor’s and Art Directors don’t always “get it” anyway.
Hi Nick! Thank you very much for your detailed comments, I really appreciate that you took the time to write them. I know you’re not my editor, but I really like to get input from other people. Often others see things in an image that I didn’t even notice (like the bright lichen patch, didn’t notice that). I’m going to try the crop you suggested. Thanks again, much appreciated.
Anne…great post. I wholeheartedly agree with Len & Russ. Photography is art and the photographer/artist must create & interpret as part of their vision. I like the color version and the sepia the best with the sepia being my favorite. It’s magical ans mysterious as if you’re walking into a different world.
Hi Edith! It really was like walking into a different world in there so I’m glad that came out in the image. I think there are too many people who expect a photograph to be literal and not art that is created by an artist. Thank you so much for your comments.
I live in both camps. I appreciate a compelling capture of the real world and enjoy good photojournalism, and I love to see the artistic expression of a photographer trying to achieve a specific effect and evoke a feeling or emotion. That said, of the three, I like the last one. One thing, though, that it seemed to be missing for me was the darkness of the waters that really comes through in the b&w version. I like the “I don’t know what’s under the surface” feeling that the blackness of the water conveys.
Nice experiment. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Steve, thank you very much for your feedback. I see what you mean about the black waters not quite coming through in the sepia version. I’ll keep working on this one and see what I can come up with. It’s kind of a fun photo to play around with that way.
I have found that photographing forests is very difficult unless there is something for the eye to focus on like a pathway or different Fall colors. They are often too busy or two dimensional. However, what you did with the third variation…wow! Looks like a line drawing but a much more focused and pleasing composition than the first two.
Hi again Richard! Exactly!! Photographing in forests is very difficult and I found that processing the image this way simplified the scene. Thank you very much for your comments, they are all appreciated.