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

[Mikhail Tal]

DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:


Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.

Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.

To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:



What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

 

[Great Bustard]

Mikhail Tal wrote:

DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:


Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.

Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.

To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:



What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

...and your "oversweetened" version has the lesser appeal of the two. Of course, there's no reason my aesthetic should be the same as yours -- I'm pretty sure that for every pic I think is awesome, there's at least one person that thinks it sucks.

 

[Mikhail Tal]

Great Bustard wrote:

...and your "oversweetened" version has the lesser appeal of the two. Of course, there's no reason my aesthetic should be the same as yours -- I'm pretty sure that for every pic I think is awesome, there's at least one person that thinks it sucks.

I can understand not liking the composition as well, I didn't even feel it was necessary to go there because of how incontrovertibly brutal the image was in other aspects. This guy flat out doesn't deserve to ride on DPR's coat tails.

 

[brianj]

Great Bustard wrote:

Mikhail Tal wrote:

DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:


Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.

Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.

To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:



What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

...and your "oversweetened" version has the lesser appeal of the two. Of course, there's no reason my aesthetic should be the same as yours -- I'm pretty sure that for every pic I think is awesome, there's at least one person that thinks it sucks.

Neither appeals to me, maybe something in between the two extremes.

Brian

 

[DenWil]

Mikhail Tal wrote:

DPR published an article showing some images taken by Carsten Krieger in bad weather that they deemed "great photography." I say the photographs were generally terrible because they looked exactly like any other amateur snapshots taken in bad weather: underexposed, poorly lit, and sorely lacking in contrast and saturation. Here is an example from the article, including Krieger's own caption:


Digital technology has made capturing good images in bad weather much easier. To the naked eye the sky in this scene was a bland grey. Using the HDR technique and applying a digital tonal contrast filter brought out detail and colour.Canon EOS 5D Mark III, 24mm TS-E, F14, 1/13 sec, HDR (+/- 3 stops), tripod.

Notice how out of touch with reality this guy is. He's acting like this is some great image when in fact it is terribly bland regardless of what he did to it. He used about $5k worth of gear and claimed to use fancy processing, yet he's still produced something that looks like an amateur snap. All he had to do was look at the image histogram to see how poorly exposed it is, making a mockery of the term high dynamic range.

To back up my scathing criticism of his inferior work, I snagged the low-res image he posted in the article and spent about two minutes making some really simple edits in ACR to produce something that actually looks like a legitimate professional photograph:



What do you know, an image that actually has some legitimate dynamic range and color in it. Again, this isn't a brag by any means, it's a trivial adjustment that anybody with even a basic knowledge of ACR could have made. I am calling out Carsten Krieger - and DPR - because they have posted several articles by him and I find his photography to be grossly overrated for reasons such as what I have pointed out here. Just another overgeared rich guy who thinks his photos are professional just because he threw an HDR process on that he doesn't even know how to use correctly.

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

Both weak. The first is flat, lifeless and murky. The second is ...well, I didn't know there was an Adobe LSD plug in. The wide lens aperture and processing combines for a video game 3D effect. Great if you are writing the next version of Myst, bad otherwise.



By chance is there an Adobe Alice B. Toklas brownie plug in that splits the difference between gloomy and hyper realism?

 

[Kvenna]

'Under exposed' and 'badly lit'? Could that perhaps be because the point of the photo is to show, er, a scene taken in bad weather? What then would be the point in adjusting the exposure to make it look as though it was taken on a bright sunny day, as you have done? Believe it or not, there are people who sometimes like to take photos that capture the scene they see rather than what they perhaps might have liked to have seen!

I see nothing special in the original image, but yours just looks ridiculously over-processed.

 

[Mikhail Tal]

Okay, you think that is overprocessed, I revised it to show that to something in between the two, so you can still see that it was taken in bad weather but more dynamic and punchy than his original. Again bear in mind that he claimed to do a bunch of fancy processing and all I had to do was move a few sliders around.

 

[Mikhail Tal]

Sorry for the image not imbedding for some reason, and not sure why I can't edit the post either.

 

[Great Bustard]

Mikhail Tal wrote:

Okay, you think that is overprocessed, I revised it to show that to something in between the two, so you can still see that it was taken in bad weather but more dynamic and punchy than his original. Again bear in mind that he claimed to do a bunch of fancy processing and all I had to do was move a few sliders around.

...here's my take on it:





As you can see, I'm not so much a fan of the punchy heavy tone curve look.

 

[Carsten Pauer 2]

So please vote for whose image you prefer and explain why.

I've voted for Carsten, why ? Your Photo looks extremely Harsh, over saturated and unnatural compared to Carstens Photo.
Are You really sure that the green Color is so bright under this Weather conditions ?

The other is, i Think (dont know) Carsten has used a Filter for the Clouds.
Because the Smokestack looks to dark compared to the rest of the Photo.

That is a Point there i no like on the Kriegers Photo.
Here a slight edited Version from me, where the long green+Smokestack looks for me a bit more realistic:

Regards: Carsten

 

[Mikhail Tal]

Yours is almost exactly like the original except even less saturated.

 

[Great Bustard]

Mikhail Tal wrote:

Yours is almost exactly like the original except even less saturated.

You think? I think they look rather different (but, yes, mine is less saturated).

Original:





My edit:






Oh well -- just shows there's no accounting for taste, eh? ;-)

 

[photodanceau]

When will you be posting your image so people can vote in the poll, from your text there is only one image which you have then downloaded, applied some image editing and then published, presumably as a photographer you requested permission from the copyright owner before doing that.

Then you suggest in the poll there are two different images and that one is yours, not two treatments of the same image which you have earlier said is not your photograph.

 

[Mikhail Tal]

photodanceau wrote:

When will you be posting your image so people can vote in the poll, from your text there is only one image which you have then downloaded, applied some image editing and then published, presumably as a photographer you requested permission from the copyright owner before doing that.

Then you suggest in the poll there are two different images and that one is yours, not two treatments of the same image which you have earlier said is not your photograph.

Uh oh the IP police are here. You know, those people who lack the capacity to understand that any distinction anyone makes between a unique image and a derivative image is entirely arbitrary, like the "80% rule" or other such nonsense.

 

[Mike Ronesia]

What poll?

The first one is boring and the second one is just an HDR type mess.

I like GB's, but I'd crop out the left and bottom.

 

[Dan Marchant]

The original is bland, uninteresting and underexposed and your version is over-processed to the point of looking fake.

 

[RobertSigmund]

It does not look really sharp. I recommend Qimage.

 

[mike703]

I much prefer the original. Maybe subtlety isn't your strong point. The fact that you think a garish, over-saturated appearance makes a picture look 'professional' says far more about you than it does the original photographer or the original image.

 

[Britney Elvis]

No offence intended, but yours is just brutally overcooked. I can imagine that if yours looks good on your monitor, the original must be somewhere near dark grey...

But to each their own.

gus

 

[Draek]

His, easily. Yes, it's somewhat bland to me, but even leaving aside the context that suggests the image's value and judgement was purely on technical and illustrative terms rather than high art, my first reaction to your photo was "oh, God, my eyes!", which as far as first impressions go it ranks near the absolute bottom.