Landscape retouching.

[mahidoes]

Original


Final

I'm not a dedicated landscape photographer.

I found this in a forum. I can't believe or never expected this much editing is done on landscape photography.

Having that said. I feel medium format and larger format cameras with even with little more dynamic range give advantage giving that headroom to polish it in landscape photography!

Now I understand the value of them. Am I right?

--
Check my pictures on

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Hawkypuck]

Yeah, but for me it shows how much these days everytging is edited and NOT the original at all.

 

[KENTGA]

Whoever did the retouching did a great job.

Kent

 

[chrisfisheye]

Yeah, but for me it shows how much these days everytging is edited and NOT the original at all.

I agree 100%.

Editing should be used to enhance a picture, no problems . But here it changes the reality of the original picture, no way the sky had this colours in the original picture !!!

I don't like this.

 

[Hawkypuck]

I feel medium format and larger format camera

There are no digital cameras larger than medium format!

 

[Hawkypuck]

Yes, there is a difference between enhancing and conpletely altering the image to the point where it is not original and unnatural!

 

[Graham Meale]

The original is rather dull and uninspiring, and I'd have done quite a bit of work on it to give it a bit of sparkle. (Either that or ditched it.) But I probably wouldn't have gone quite so far, as it's no longer an accurate reproduction of what was. I guess we all have opinions as to where to draw the line.

That said, the processed shot is certainly stunning. And unless we were shown the original, or had been there at the time, none of us would know it was exaggerated. Of course, there's no law to say photos have to be realistic.

How many times have you heard people return from a holiday and say "It was beautiful, but not as pretty as in the brochures." I wonder why ...

I often clone things out of photos. For example a beautiful stone medieval village with a solitary 21st-century car parked. The car has got to go.

But about the only times I occasionally exaggerate colours is sunsets and sunrises. Nature is given free rein then, so I figure we should be given carte blanche also.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Original


Final

I'm not a dedicated landscape photographer.

I found this in a forum. I can't believe or never expected this much editing is done on landscape photography.

But this much is how much exactly?

You're seeing the difference between the original flat profile and the final result, but the original one was likely only a bit closer to the reality than the final one.

Generally they bumped the contrast and emphasised the highlights on the grass. The sky was dehazed. That orange glow in the sky was added - probably the most 'unnatural' thing in the image.

Having that said. I feel medium format and larger format cameras with even with little more dynamic range give advantage giving that headroom to polish it in landscape photography!
Now I understand the value of them. Am I right?

Yes, if you use that headroom well...

--

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

500px

500px.com

 

[Hawkypuck]

Yes, but i really don't like unnaturak and non original or overedited images!

 

[Graham Meale]

Yes, but i really don't like unnatural and non original or overedited images!

I agree re "unnatural" and "overedited" (the only exception, as I said, being sunrises and sunsets ... occasionally). But I've learnt that even these days cameras are not always able to capture a scene accurately. You're aware, aren't you, that the camera does a lot of "adjustments" for its JPEGs?

--
www.grahammeale.info

 

[Hawkypuck]

I am

 

[Hawkypuck]

That's why RAW files look better straight out of camera than jpegs, they are unedited!

 

[Graham Meale]

That's why raw files look better straight out of camera than JPEGs, they are unedited!

We'll have to disagree on that. A pity, we were getting along so nicely.

 

[robgendreau]

ms18 wrote:
Final

I'm not a dedicated landscape photographer.

I found this in a forum. I can't believe or never expected this much editing is done on landscape photography.

Having that said. I feel medium format and larger format cameras with even with little more dynamic range give advantage giving that headroom to polish it in landscape photography!
Now I understand the value of them. Am I right?

Editing has always been done in landscape. Read about Ansel Adams for example; a lot work went into those prints.

And some newer smaller format cameras have plenty of room for editing, especially with compositing, sky replacements, stacking to remove noise, pixel shift, HDR, digital ND filters, etc.

Some can't tell some photos have been edited (even in film days). Some say too much is done. It's like all things; different tastes for different people. Even if your goal is a sort of journalistic capture of a landscape, you still might need some editing. Cameras don't see like we do.

 

[Hawkypuck]

Oh, i'm sorry.......... It's okay if we disagree, it's completely normal here

 

[Graham Meale]

Oh, i'm sorry.......... It's okay if we disagree, it's completely normal here

I used to get into days-long debates (ie arguments) in these forums, but I don't any more. Life's too short. Others can enjoy the bun fights.

 

[Hawkypuck]

I agree, have a good day!

Life is too short, and we must, must, value each and every moment very dearly and not let it go to waste!

Just my little advice

 

[bjn70]

I found this in a forum. I can't believe or never expected this much editing is done on landscape photography.

It seems to me that modern landscape photography is creating images, not taking them. You find a composition, you take an exposure, then you create the image in post processing. The composition and the original digital file(s) are just the raw materials that go into making the image.

 

[JimH123]

Yeah, but for me it shows how much these days everytging is edited and NOT the original at all.

I agree 100%.

Editing should be used to enhance a picture, no problems . But here it changes the reality of the original picture, no way the sky had this colours in the original picture !!!

I don't like this.

It doesn't matter if the original has been changed! If you like the results, that is all that matters.

If we are taking pictures for evidence for some crime, then not changing anything is required. But for one's own pleasure, go for it.

Now I have heard that whatever picture you look at in a magazine has been edited, and often edited a lot.

 

[mahidoes]

English isn't my first language. I would have phrased it better. I wanted to say "Big sensor cameras in general"