Hello all,
I am posting this series of images to hopefully try to get a technical explanation for some subjective feedback I have been getting. I have shown several non-photographers these images, and one of the most common “compliments” is “Wow it looks like a painting!”. At that point I zoom in and show them actual details that a painting would not have and move on. The problem is that my goal with my images is to capture the scene as I saw it. I am not going for an artificial or surrealistic look. I try to be light handed with post processing as far as saturation, sharpening, etc. And other than exposure blending and focus stacking, I don’t to any creative touches like warping or perspective blending. Am I reading too much in to this? Or is something I am doing in my workflow leading to an artificial look. Just to give you all the information, I generally adjust exposure in LR > Blend if necessary > clone/spot removal > midtone contrast > mild global saturation > dodge and burn > do any color grading/ local saturation > sharpen. All thoughts an opinions are welcome. Thanks for taking your time to read this!
Anything I could be doing that might give it an artificial look.
What artistic feedback would you like if any?
If you have any other thoughts regarding composition, etc., feel free to include those as well.
Pertinent technical details or techniques:
Image 1 was shot with 5D MkI and 70-200 F2.8L. I did clone out a branch and do some slight color grading to the sun rays.
Image 2 and 3 were shot with a 5D MkIII and a 24-70 f2.8L. Both were exposure blends. Color contrast(cool vs warm) were added to shadows and highlights of image 3.
Andy, I would strongly suggest you should post each of these separately, as they are completely different scenes from different locations. Doing so will afford you more reasonable comments. Also, you might want to have a look at the “how to” video for guidance, which is located under Site Discussions / Site Tips. It’s very informative.
Andy, I’m going to respond to your broad questions, rather than get into specifics on the individual images. I’ll start by asking what do you hope to get out of photography, and who are you making your images for? Are they for yourself, and your own personal satisfaction, or are you trying to create images for sale to others? You stated “my goal with my images is to capture the scene as I saw it. I am not going for an artificial or surrealistic look.” None of these three images look painterly or surrealistic to me, and your processing techniques are fairly standard ones that do do not veer into heavy manipulation. Unless you are trying to sell your work, I think the opinions of non-photographers should not concern you very much, what’s more important are your own goals for your photography.
I think the comments you have gotten about painterly may be due to these shots showing grand vistas, since the general public is somewhat familiar with American landscape paintings such as those from the Hudson River School, etc. It may also be due to non-photographers being used to taking pictures of places in National Parks with their phones, and getting poor results. Thus when they see images from DSLRs where the photographers have controlled the light with filters, processing etc, the images are so much better, they look more like paintings to them than their mediocre cell phone snaps do.
If your goal is to make images that are close to the reality of what you saw, that is fine. But you are better off discussing your images with peers such as the folks here at NPN, instead of getting feedback from the general public. I find my images are stronger when I make them to please myself, rather than making images that will please others, especially the general public. But I’m not trying to make money from my images either.
With that said, a good number of of photographers here at the NPN landscape critique forum would consider it a a compliment if someone referred to their work as painterly. But we each have our own goals.
Thank you for your responses. @Bill_Leggett, I would totally agree if I was requesting in depth critiques of each image. But to be clear, I’m just wanted to know if, at first glance, these images appear realistic, or do they look\overprocessed. And if they do, is there something in my workflow that may be contributing to that result. @Ed_McGuirk As far as what I want to get out of photography…It is my vehicle for creative expression and also a wonderful excuse to get out in nature. I also want to show the beauty of our natural world in hopes that others will come to appreciate it more. I generally value the opinions I receive on this website far more than any others for obvious reasons. That’s why I posted on here. I was concerned that something In my processing could be altering my intended result. Thank you for the feedback on that. That being said, I have begun the process of building a website in hopes of making some sales. (It would be great if this hobby could pay for itself) So I am somewhat interested in what the general public’s opinions are. Mostly as a gauge on whether or not I am accomplishing my intended goal, but also to see if it resonates with potential buyers.
These are beautiful images that look quite realistic and not over the top to me. I think the real reason your getting these comments is because of the atmosphere you are capturing. The light beams in the first one, the misty, glowy atmosphere in the second, and sunrise light on the last one. Most people never or rarely see these things, we tend to take them for granted because we seek them out and see them often. The general public never gets up for sunrise, they don’t seek out storms to see beautiful light as the storm clears, etc. These scenes are surreal to them and the closest thing they can compare it to is a painting. So the next time someone says that I highly recommend taking it as a compliment.
If you are trying to sell your prints to John Q. Public you will probably find that images with blue skies sell better. That’s because this is what most people see on their vacation, they go out on ‘nice’ clear days, usually around 9-10 am, so this is what is in their memory and what they want to see on their wall to remember the place. It completely goes against what most of us seek out as photographers unfortunately.
I do not actively sell my work, but from time to time have made print sales via random requests from my website (usually family, friends, co-workers, etc. viewing my site), or from print exhibits that I have hung at local libraries, community centers etc that exhibit local artists work. In most cases I am very surprised by what images sell to the public, they are rarely my favorite images. I think this just echos the comments you got from David Kingham, which is that the public often has very different tastes than experienced landscape photographers, they don’t always appreciate or value the same things we do. Thus certain images will be much appreciated here at NPN, but will never sell, and conversely some images that might sell well would be considered nothing special here at NPN.
Hi Andy,
Just a funny side note - I’ve been a professional studio artist (painter) for over 30 years and do you know what the broader public says about representational paintings?.. “Wow, that looks like a photograph” LOL - People just respond and don’t really think about it… I wouldn’t take it too much to heart.
BTW, I don’t think your photos look like paintings - and I’ve viewed thousands and thousands of paintings. I like your processing and think it looks very “photographic”
@David_Kingham, @Igor_Doncov, and @John_Scane thank you for your insights on this topic and the comments regarding the images. I suppose we do see things differently that the average viewer. Those non-photographers sure are a peculiar bunch!
Hi Andy, Given the image samples you’ve posted, I’d say the answer to y our question is, Yes. IMHO, comments like “it looks like a painting” from the general non-photographer public are pretty common. Honestly, it’s kind of an oxymoron - in the sense, that I bet those folks aren’t painters either? (To John’s point.) I haven’t done many public showings, but I’m sure most who have, have heard comments like, “I’ve got a shot just like that with my iPhone…” or “This was photoshopped…”
Even here in the galleries and critique galleries, it’s not uncommon to make the comment, “this has a great painterly look to it…” In fact, I would say the valley and light beams in your first image have that painterly quality. That’s not say anything about processing really - there are simply many types of scenes that just have a painterly look.
I would take it as a compliment and leave it at that. It’s a much better comment than, “This looks fake!” Which of course is the last thing you want to hear.
2nd and 3rd images are wonderful. I was just staring up at the beautiful Half Dome monolith at sunset on Tuesday… I miss that place already!
