Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

Started Aug 20, 2013 | Polls
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Tone Row Regular Member • Posts: 334
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

Mikhail Tal wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

John Motts wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

santamonica812 wrote:

First version: Low saturation, and to my eye, a realistic representation of what the photographer was looking at. Not a terribly interesting image, but unobjectionable.

Your first attempt: Simply dreadful. An above poster used the word 'cartoonish,' and that probably fits better than anything I could come up with. The horrific overcooking was a poor processing decision . . . it's one of the worst-looking images I've seen in recent memory. (I'd never give this sort of feedback sua sponte, but you did specifically ask for our reactions.) The later, toned-down versions were much much better.

Honestly, when I first looked at your first attempt, I thought you were joking, and that you were poking fun at people who don't know how to use any restraint in their post-processing. I feel a bit bad, and a bit ashamed, now that I know you were making a good-faith effort to make the original photo better. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I guess it's a good thing that what appeals to one person will repel another.

Don't let my feedback (or any of the other negative feedback) discourage you. We were all beginners at one point. And once you have a few months of photographer, and of post-processing, under your belt, you'll never make this sort of mistake again. We were all there once . . . and luckily for those of us with a few years under out belt, our train-wrecks of early experiments were done in private, and were well before the widespread nature of the internet. I'd hate for anyone to see my work that I did during my first photography class.

So, keep it up! Your work will certainly get a lot better over time, as it did for all of us.

I am glad that you have supplied a candid reaction. I actually think that the credibility of my first edit is validated by the fact that it evoked a much more powerful response from you than the original. The original was unobjectionable but uninteresting. The second was objectionable, ergo interesting. Controversial, if you will. It polarizes opinion as much as it polarizes the color gamut. One of the worst-looking images you've seen in recent memory? That's an amazing accomplishment that few could ever hope to achieve! ANYONE can make an unobjectionable, uninteresting, image, but few can make one that is unforgettable.

We can all solicit a strong reaction by posting a poor image or by processing something badly,

How do you know this? How many people done such a thing? Have you? Almost every photo I see posted on here is forgotten within five seconds of being viewed. What I have posted is still being talked about the day later and for who knows how long into the future.

but that doesn't, in itself give it any merit. Perhaps you don't have a calibrated monitor, but it just looks like some cheap plug-in from ten years ago. Sorry.

No need for apologies! What you have just declared is that I have succeeded in not only simulating a software plugin but transporting the viewer back in time ten years! The overwhelming majority of forgettable photos on DPR look like exactly what they are: amateur snapshots from the modern digital age that convey an ignorance and lack of appreciation of the history of photography. What you're telling me is that my image is stepped in the rich historical evolution of digital photo editing techniques. Compliments don't get much higher than that!

I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. You did not even get one compliment in this thread.

I too am afraid there is a misunderstanding. I can take as a complement any statement I please, regardless of the sender's intentions. I have received many compliments in this thread.

If I told you that your version of the photo looked like a flaming pile of cow dung would you consider it a compliment? If so, then you're welcome.

 Tone Row's gear list:Tone Row's gear list
Sony SLT-A55 NEX5R
Private Custard
Private Custard Senior Member • Posts: 1,794
Honestly....
3

.....his is bland. It's a grey sweater, a beige wall, a bowl of plain pasta.

You're looks about as amateur as it gets. Waaaay over-processed.

 Private Custard's gear list:Private Custard's gear list
Canon EOS 80D
gloaming Senior Member • Posts: 1,656
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

It is getting late in this thread, and there is a lot of repeated opinion, most of it in concert, and heel dragging.

I'll add my two cents: The first image may be quite accurate to his eye, matching very closely his recollection of the light and scene. I would have preferred it to be a bit lighter, but it seems more natural than your rendition of it.  Yours is overly contrasty, and appears almost a caricature of what his sensor recorded and how he subsequently altered it.  I like your colour and saturation better, but just.

Enjoy the rest of the show.

toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 10,730
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

I agree the original is terrible.  I don't necessarily care for your rendition either (so I'm not voting) but how good that image could really be could only be determined if we all got to start from scratch with the raw file and work on it our own selves.

Brev00
Brev00 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,499
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

I agree the original is terrible.  I don't necessarily care for your rendition either (so I'm not voting) but how good that image could really be could only be determined if we all got to start from scratch with the raw file and work on it our own selves.

That might make for a good experiment to see how flexible a raw file can be and how varied our 'natural' versions would be. I have seen contests with a single file for the sake of creativity but not to just make a pleasing, natural rendition.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro +3 more
Hemidart
Hemidart Senior Member • Posts: 1,939
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
1

The first blows away the second....

-- hide signature --

Proud owner of the Canon 5D MkI Classic.

justinwonnacott Contributing Member • Posts: 671
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
2

Who's the fellow speaking so rudely about whose image is better? He cannot spell , he is arrogant and quick to tell the world he is right while singing his own praises.  I choose Krieger over the troll.

KariP
KariP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,088
Both are quite..

boring and your version is terribly overcooked.

This was a really windy day ,    slightly less boring

-- hide signature --

Kari
SLR photography started in 1968, Canon DSLR cameras, lenses and now also a Fuji X-E1
60.21 N 24.86 E

 KariP's gear list:KariP's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 7D Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 +11 more
Mikhail Tal OP Regular Member • Posts: 281
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
1

justinwonnacott wrote:

Who's the fellow speaking so rudely about whose image is better? He cannot spell , he is arrogant and quick to tell the world he is right while singing his own praises. I choose Krieger over the troll.

Who's the fellow speaking so rudely about someone else's spelling? He cannot telll the difference between correct spelling and correct grammar.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 33,064
Re: I dare you...

Pritzl wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Pritzl wrote:

You can put lipstick on a pig but I still wouldn't kiss it.

...to say that in the Off Topic Forum.

Why? Lots of swine in there?

Nothing but. 

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 41,890
Re: To be perfectly honest, neither appeals to me...

Great Bustard wrote:

I'm pretty sure that for every pic I think is awesome, there's at least one person that thinks it sucks.

Usually the same person.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Dougbm_2 Regular Member • Posts: 447
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

My version.

It's hard when the lighting was so flat.

 Dougbm_2's gear list:Dougbm_2's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +7 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 41,890
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

Tone Row wrote:

If I told you that your version of the photo looked like a flaming pile of cow dung would you consider it a compliment? If so, then you're welcome.

That could be a more interesting subject, photographed well.

-- hide signature --

Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 41,890
Re: Honestly....

Private Custard wrote:

.....his is bland. It's a grey sweater, a beige wall, a bowl of plain pasta.

You're looks about as amateur as it gets. Waaaay over-processed.

You think that's over-processed?

Only 'normal' PP tools used, levels adjust, hue adjust, saturation increased, contrast enhanced and sharpened. Maybe a bit overdone?

-- hide signature --

Bob

justinwonnacott Contributing Member • Posts: 671
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
1

I am the fellow who is (who's) speaking to you about whose (which) image is better.

RobertSigmund
RobertSigmund Forum Pro • Posts: 10,750
Re: Honestly....
2

bobn2 wrote:

Private Custard wrote:

.....his is bland. It's a grey sweater, a beige wall, a bowl of plain pasta.

You're looks about as amateur as it gets. Waaaay over-processed.

You think that's over-processed?

Only 'normal' PP tools used, levels adjust, hue adjust, saturation increased, contrast enhanced and sharpened. Maybe a bit overdone?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Place a pretty naked girl exposing her breasts behind the window and you have got a nice photo.

 RobertSigmund's gear list:RobertSigmund's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 20D Sony SLT-A55 Sony SLT-A77 +2 more
TheDman Regular Member • Posts: 365
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?

Mikhail Tal wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

John Motts wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

santamonica812 wrote:

First version: Low saturation, and to my eye, a realistic representation of what the photographer was looking at. Not a terribly interesting image, but unobjectionable.

Your first attempt: Simply dreadful. An above poster used the word 'cartoonish,' and that probably fits better than anything I could come up with. The horrific overcooking was a poor processing decision . . . it's one of the worst-looking images I've seen in recent memory. (I'd never give this sort of feedback sua sponte, but you did specifically ask for our reactions.) The later, toned-down versions were much much better.

Honestly, when I first looked at your first attempt, I thought you were joking, and that you were poking fun at people who don't know how to use any restraint in their post-processing. I feel a bit bad, and a bit ashamed, now that I know you were making a good-faith effort to make the original photo better. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I guess it's a good thing that what appeals to one person will repel another.

Don't let my feedback (or any of the other negative feedback) discourage you. We were all beginners at one point. And once you have a few months of photographer, and of post-processing, under your belt, you'll never make this sort of mistake again. We were all there once . . . and luckily for those of us with a few years under out belt, our train-wrecks of early experiments were done in private, and were well before the widespread nature of the internet. I'd hate for anyone to see my work that I did during my first photography class.

So, keep it up! Your work will certainly get a lot better over time, as it did for all of us.

I am glad that you have supplied a candid reaction. I actually think that the credibility of my first edit is validated by the fact that it evoked a much more powerful response from you than the original. The original was unobjectionable but uninteresting. The second was objectionable, ergo interesting. Controversial, if you will. It polarizes opinion as much as it polarizes the color gamut. One of the worst-looking images you've seen in recent memory? That's an amazing accomplishment that few could ever hope to achieve! ANYONE can make an unobjectionable, uninteresting, image, but few can make one that is unforgettable.

We can all solicit a strong reaction by posting a poor image or by processing something badly,

How do you know this? How many people done such a thing? Have you? Almost every photo I see posted on here is forgotten within five seconds of being viewed. What I have posted is still being talked about the day later and for who knows how long into the future.

but that doesn't, in itself give it any merit. Perhaps you don't have a calibrated monitor, but it just looks like some cheap plug-in from ten years ago. Sorry.

No need for apologies! What you have just declared is that I have succeeded in not only simulating a software plugin but transporting the viewer back in time ten years! The overwhelming majority of forgettable photos on DPR look like exactly what they are: amateur snapshots from the modern digital age that convey an ignorance and lack of appreciation of the history of photography. What you're telling me is that my image is stepped in the rich historical evolution of digital photo editing techniques. Compliments don't get much higher than that!

I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. You did not even get one compliment in this thread.

I too am afraid there is a misunderstanding. I can take as a complement any statement I please, regardless of the sender's intentions. I have received many compliments in this thread.

You can also claim 2+2=5, but that doesn't make you right.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 41,890
Re: Honestly....

RobertSigmund wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Private Custard wrote:

.....his is bland. It's a grey sweater, a beige wall, a bowl of plain pasta.

You're looks about as amateur as it gets. Waaaay over-processed.

You think that's over-processed?

Only 'normal' PP tools used, levels adjust, hue adjust, saturation increased, contrast enhanced and sharpened. Maybe a bit overdone?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Place a pretty naked girl exposing her breasts behind the window and you have got a nice photo.

Carsten was fortunate enough to shoot it somewhere where that kind of person didn't keep on getting in shot and spoiling it.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 33,064
Yeah, but...

bobn2 wrote:

RobertSigmund wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Private Custard wrote:

.....his is bland. It's a grey sweater, a beige wall, a bowl of plain pasta.

You're looks about as amateur as it gets. Waaaay over-processed.

You think that's over-processed?

Only 'normal' PP tools used, levels adjust, hue adjust, saturation increased, contrast enhanced and sharpened. Maybe a bit overdone?

Place a pretty naked girl exposing her breasts behind the window and you have got a nice photo.

Carsten was fortunate enough to shoot it somewhere where that kind of person didn't keep on getting in shot and spoiling it.

...he got lucky I wasn't there. 

I remember walking by a model shoot on the beach and saying to the photographer, "I'll model for half what you're paying her."  He said that she was paying him.  "How much would I have to pay you?"  I didn't realize professional photographers made that kind of money.

toomanycanons Forum Pro • Posts: 10,730
Re: Who's image is better, Carsten Krieger's or mine?
1

It's like the photographer underexposed this shot to simulate "bad weather".  I just downloaded the "original" which was, surprisingly, 1.4 mb and ran it through (gasp!) Picasa "I'm Feeling Lucky" instead of instead going into CS5.  Here's the quick result:

That's about as simple a re-do as can be done.  Weather doesn't look so "stormy" here does it?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads