This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Was looking at these earlier on the Guardian's website and thought they'd be appreciated on here. Some outstanding images:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/nov/09/take-a-view-lan...
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/nov/09/take-a-view-lan...
In reply to FrankBooth:
Yeah, I don't really like the winner either. Some great shots in the rest though!
Yeah, I don't really like the winner either. Some great shots in the rest though!
In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:
The winner's the only one which says anything to me. I find the other actual landscape ones either soulless or plain mediocre. Better stuff in the UKC galleries every week.
The winner's the only one which says anything to me. I find the other actual landscape ones either soulless or plain mediocre. Better stuff in the UKC galleries every week.
Post edited at 12:38
1
In reply to FrankBooth:
One man's beef and all that - I love the first... if Turner had a camera, kind of thing
One man's beef and all that - I love the first... if Turner had a camera, kind of thing
In reply to FrankBooth:
I like most of them, some interesting viewpoints. A few good but unoriginal shots too
I like most of them, some interesting viewpoints. A few good but unoriginal shots too
In reply to FrankBooth:
Exactly what I thought, almost like an impressionist painting, I love it.
> (In reply to FrankBooth)
>
> One man's beef and all that - I love the first... if Turner had a camera, kind of thing
>
> One man's beef and all that - I love the first... if Turner had a camera, kind of thing
Exactly what I thought, almost like an impressionist painting, I love it.
1
In reply to FrankBooth:
I really liked the winner. Hated the Winnats Pass, Rosebery Topping and Durdle Door ones - I found them utterly without imagination, very 'chocolate box'/'Amateur Photographer'-type gets revved up over archetypal calendar shot'.
I really liked the winner. Hated the Winnats Pass, Rosebery Topping and Durdle Door ones - I found them utterly without imagination, very 'chocolate box'/'Amateur Photographer'-type gets revved up over archetypal calendar shot'.
In reply to FrankBooth:
That's why I don't like it..... it looks like they have tried to create that effect but to me it is neither a good photo or a good painting. Turner would have framed the scene better but I assume the photographer couldn't do that as it would spoil the effect.
> One man's beef and all that - I love the first... if Turner had a camera, kind of thing
That's why I don't like it..... it looks like they have tried to create that effect but to me it is neither a good photo or a good painting. Turner would have framed the scene better but I assume the photographer couldn't do that as it would spoil the effect.
Post edited at 13:23
In reply to FrankBooth:
I really like the winner, I imagine it looks best as a large print where you can get lost in the detail. Fred 'n' Sue is great too, also like the Sheffield Art tower , with the little foreground tree. Seen most of the others before!
I really like the winner, I imagine it looks best as a large print where you can get lost in the detail. Fred 'n' Sue is great too, also like the Sheffield Art tower , with the little foreground tree. Seen most of the others before!
In reply to Tall Clare:
Another vote for the winner. I'd have like the Durdle Door one better if it had no land in it! There are some interesting patterns in the sea and sky, but that's about it.
Another vote for the winner. I'd have like the Durdle Door one better if it had no land in it! There are some interesting patterns in the sea and sky, but that's about it.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
It looks to me like the landscape created the effect and the photographer simply did their job of recording it honestly and well; really conjured up the feeling of a wet Glencoe nicely.
> That's why I don't like it..... it looks like they have tried to create that effect.
It looks to me like the landscape created the effect and the photographer simply did their job of recording it honestly and well; really conjured up the feeling of a wet Glencoe nicely.
In reply to Tall Clare:
yeah, not fond of them myself, but must remember the Durdle Door is the winner of the Youth category - so not a bad start to someone's photographic careers, perhaps?
> Hated the Winnats Pass, Rosebery Topping and Durdle Door ones..
yeah, not fond of them myself, but must remember the Durdle Door is the winner of the Youth category - so not a bad start to someone's photographic careers, perhaps?
In reply to FrankBooth:
Thanks for posting the link. Some nice shots and thought provoking anyway. The winner is very Turner-esque. I fiind it very evocative of the mountains in 'weather' but it lacks something.
Thanks for posting the link. Some nice shots and thought provoking anyway. The winner is very Turner-esque. I fiind it very evocative of the mountains in 'weather' but it lacks something.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Really... I don't even remember the west coast of Scotland being that dour! The histogram confirms what I thought, the photographer has intentionally under-exposed it to create the effect, my eyes don't do that.
> It looks to me like the landscape created the effect and the photographer simply did their job of recording it honestly and well; really conjured up the feeling of a wet Glencoe nicely.
Really... I don't even remember the west coast of Scotland being that dour! The histogram confirms what I thought, the photographer has intentionally under-exposed it to create the effect, my eyes don't do that.
Post edited at 14:21
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Really......you can't have spent much time on the west coast of Scotland then!
How can you tell that?
> Really... I don't even remember the west coast of Scotland being that dour!
Really......you can't have spent much time on the west coast of Scotland then!
> The histogram confirms what I thought, the photographer has intentionally under-exposed it to create the effect, my eyes don't do that.
How can you tell that?
In reply to Robert Durran:
Fair enough.
Histogram plugin on browser, I right click and it shows it.
> Really......you can't have spent much time on the west coast of Scotland then!
Fair enough.
> How can you tell that?
Histogram plugin on browser, I right click and it shows it.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
>
> Histogram plugin on browser, I right click and it shows it.
Nothing surprising about under exposing a predominately 'dark subject' to save the highlights being blown out.In reply to Mike Stretford:
Sorry and excuse my ignorance (and this may be a bit of a technical question), but what I meant was, how can you tell the difference, without actually being there, between a histogram which has been shunted to the left by decreasing the exposure (or indeed by post processing) and one which was to the left in the first place because the light really is a bit gloomy?
> Histogram plugin on browser, I right click and it shows it.
Sorry and excuse my ignorance (and this may be a bit of a technical question), but what I meant was, how can you tell the difference, without actually being there, between a histogram which has been shunted to the left by decreasing the exposure (or indeed by post processing) and one which was to the left in the first place because the light really is a bit gloomy?
In reply to Tall Clare:
>very 'chocolate box'/'Amateur Photographer'-type gets revved up over archetypal calendar shot'.
I'm a big fan of Jack Vettriano too.
>very 'chocolate box'/'Amateur Photographer'-type gets revved up over archetypal calendar shot'.
I'm a big fan of Jack Vettriano too.
In reply to Robert Durran:
I see artificial and quite distinct boundaries in the shading on the rock which I have never seen in real life before (it gets pretty gloomy in NW england too). I'm sure other's can see it that's why they are calling it Turneresque.
> Sorry and excuse my ignorance (and this may be a bit of a technical question), but what I meant was, how can you tell the difference, without actually being there, between a histogram which has been shunted to the left by decreasing the exposure (or indeed by post processing) and one which was to the left in the first place because the light really is a bit gloomy?
I see artificial and quite distinct boundaries in the shading on the rock which I have never seen in real life before (it gets pretty gloomy in NW england too). I'm sure other's can see it that's why they are calling it Turneresque.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Ok (though I don't see it myself), but how, as you claimed, does the histogram confirm it?
> I see artificial and quite distinct boundaries in the shading on the rock which I have never seen in real life before.
Ok (though I don't see it myself), but how, as you claimed, does the histogram confirm it?
In reply to Robert Durran:
Have you noticed how the burn/stream suddenly just stops, vanishes?....looks well dodgy, must've been 'shopped' ..
Have you noticed how the burn/stream suddenly just stops, vanishes?....looks well dodgy, must've been 'shopped' ..
In reply to Robert Durran:
As you put it the image has been 'shunted to the left', our eyes/brain doesn't do that. If it was a bit gloomy, we would just 'stretch' the image out the get as much detail as we could. A camera would too, unless by accident or processing.
Saying that we do see things differently (different people).
As you put it the image has been 'shunted to the left', our eyes/brain doesn't do that. If it was a bit gloomy, we would just 'stretch' the image out the get as much detail as we could. A camera would too, unless by accident or processing.
Saying that we do see things differently (different people).
Post edited at 15:21
In reply to dek:
From the horses mouth. Turns out he got the effect by trying to get the stream (high iso, auto focus off) in that snapshot state.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/11/mark-littlejohn-landscape-photographe...
I like it more having read that.
(edit: link added whoops)
> Have you noticed how the burn/stream suddenly just stops, vanishes?....looks well dodgy, must've been 'shopped' ..
From the horses mouth. Turns out he got the effect by trying to get the stream (high iso, auto focus off) in that snapshot state.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/11/mark-littlejohn-landscape-photographe...
I like it more having read that.
(edit: link added whoops)
Post edited at 15:52
In reply to Tall Clare:
Even the one of the dogs arse? I'm indifferent to JV but you seemed one cliche off a full house.
> I don't mind Jack Vettriano. I do really dislike this stuff though.
Even the one of the dogs arse? I'm indifferent to JV but you seemed one cliche off a full house.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Really? Are you saying a camera would automatically produce as high a contrast as possible (without specifically being set to do so)?
> https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/11/mark-littlejohn-landscape-photographe...
So do I! A good read. Nothing to suggest he fiddled the exposure to make it look gloomier.
> As you put it the image has been 'shunted to the left', our eyes/brain doesn't do that. If it was a bit gloomy, we would just 'stretch' the image out the get as much detail as we could. A camera would too.
Really? Are you saying a camera would automatically produce as high a contrast as possible (without specifically being set to do so)?
> https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/11/mark-littlejohn-landscape-photographe...
> I like it more having read that.
So do I! A good read. Nothing to suggest he fiddled the exposure to make it look gloomier.
Post edited at 16:21
In reply to Robert Durran:
Not high contrast but well balanced......my camera seems to.
Well, he does explains why is looks like it does (his 5th reply to the interveiwer).
> Really? Are you saying a camera would automatically produce as high a contrast as possible (without specifically being set to do so)?
Not high contrast but well balanced......my camera seems to.
> So do I! A good read. Nothing to suggest he fiddled the exposure.......
Well, he does explains why is looks like it does (his 5th reply to the interveiwer).
In reply to FrankBooth:
I really like 1, 4 & 9.
10 is stunning even though it looks a little unbelievable.
I like 6 and I want to like 3 but there is almost too much going on in the foreground, for me the rabbit is competing with the background for attention, and the background is as much a part of the photo as the foreground. Take out the rabbit and it becaomes a better shot, yet the rabbit is key to the shot...
2 doesn't work for me and 5 is a bit OTT, too much dynamic range shenanigins, a bit too green. Nikon D800 is my guess. Not wild about the composition either but each to their own.
Although part of my job involves shooting architecture No. 7 really ain't my thing.
I really like 1, 4 & 9.
10 is stunning even though it looks a little unbelievable.
I like 6 and I want to like 3 but there is almost too much going on in the foreground, for me the rabbit is competing with the background for attention, and the background is as much a part of the photo as the foreground. Take out the rabbit and it becaomes a better shot, yet the rabbit is key to the shot...
2 doesn't work for me and 5 is a bit OTT, too much dynamic range shenanigins, a bit too green. Nikon D800 is my guess. Not wild about the composition either but each to their own.
Although part of my job involves shooting architecture No. 7 really ain't my thing.
In reply to FrankBooth:
The winner didn't do much for me when I first saw it on my phone screen. Looks beautiful on my computer screen and I guess it would look even better as a framed large print.
The winner didn't do much for me when I first saw it on my phone screen. Looks beautiful on my computer screen and I guess it would look even better as a framed large print.
In reply to FrankBooth:
my favorite is the london bridge station, something about the pools of light on the platforms
and the more i look at it the more the people seem to be moving
my favorite is the london bridge station, something about the pools of light on the platforms
and the more i look at it the more the people seem to be moving
In reply to FrankBooth:
I saw these yesterday on another site and was wholeheartedly disappointed in the quality of them. Certainly the most intriguing one is the winner and I can see something in it but it fails to convey a sense of depth or form in the landscape - it is too flat - unless the aim is to convey exactly that element. Whatever the intention was I am afraid it just doesn't work for me.
I saw these yesterday on another site and was wholeheartedly disappointed in the quality of them. Certainly the most intriguing one is the winner and I can see something in it but it fails to convey a sense of depth or form in the landscape - it is too flat - unless the aim is to convey exactly that element. Whatever the intention was I am afraid it just doesn't work for me.
In reply to mac fae stirling:
Under the boulder field.
> I like the photo but that is a good point - where does the stream go?
Under the boulder field.
In reply to Removed User:
I didn't even notice the rabbit until you mentioned it! Now I like the rabbit.
Incidentally, quite a few of the photos seem to be rather stretching the definition of landscape. Surely in a "landscape" photograph the natural landscape should at least take centre stage. Buildings? Dog Walking? Railway stations?
> For me the rabbit is competing with the background for attention, and the background is as much a part of the photo as the foreground. Take out the rabbit and it becaomes a better shot, yet the rabbit is key to the shot...
I didn't even notice the rabbit until you mentioned it! Now I like the rabbit.
Incidentally, quite a few of the photos seem to be rather stretching the definition of landscape. Surely in a "landscape" photograph the natural landscape should at least take centre stage. Buildings? Dog Walking? Railway stations?
In reply to Robert Durran:
An urban landscape is still a landscape - unless the rules of the competition specify 'natural' landscape.
An urban landscape is still a landscape - unless the rules of the competition specify 'natural' landscape.
In reply to FrankBooth:
I quite like stark 'Fred & Sue' and the dream-like 'Bowdown Berries.'
The Durdle Door one looks slightly over-saturated and the grass has an unnatural hue that you get when wanging up the shadows fader in Lightroom, which given that the photographer and the grass are clearly in the shade, is probably what's happened. Also, not a fan of the long exposure completely smoothing out the sea and the clouds' movement.
London Bridge looks a bit over-vignetted...
Winnats Pass, and Roseberry Topping, a bit like Durdle Door - a bit over-saturated and shadow lightened.
It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, and I'm conscious that most of my pics on Flickr suffer the same 'hyper-reality' that I'm criticising, but none of them really made me think 'wow, I want to be there!', unlike many of the landscape pics on UKC.
I quite like stark 'Fred & Sue' and the dream-like 'Bowdown Berries.'
The Durdle Door one looks slightly over-saturated and the grass has an unnatural hue that you get when wanging up the shadows fader in Lightroom, which given that the photographer and the grass are clearly in the shade, is probably what's happened. Also, not a fan of the long exposure completely smoothing out the sea and the clouds' movement.
London Bridge looks a bit over-vignetted...
Winnats Pass, and Roseberry Topping, a bit like Durdle Door - a bit over-saturated and shadow lightened.
It's easy to snipe from the sidelines, and I'm conscious that most of my pics on Flickr suffer the same 'hyper-reality' that I'm criticising, but none of them really made me think 'wow, I want to be there!', unlike many of the landscape pics on UKC.
Post edited at 10:14
In reply to FrankBooth:
Probably the first time I've really been taken by a winner of this competition. An excellent shot. It's also good to see that there is only a couple that have had the saturation turned up to 11. Hopefuly we are seeing this particularly horrible fashion coming to an end and seeing an emergence of more subtle work. The Durdle Door, Winnats Pass and Roseberry Topping ones are just horrible, make yer eyes itch horrible.
Probably the first time I've really been taken by a winner of this competition. An excellent shot. It's also good to see that there is only a couple that have had the saturation turned up to 11. Hopefuly we are seeing this particularly horrible fashion coming to an end and seeing an emergence of more subtle work. The Durdle Door, Winnats Pass and Roseberry Topping ones are just horrible, make yer eyes itch horrible.
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
The 50k OS map does show the stream in the B.Fhada gully disappearing for 100m or so (then re-appearing for 200m and disappearing again). Must be a massive boulder field there.
The 50k OS map does show the stream in the B.Fhada gully disappearing for 100m or so (then re-appearing for 200m and disappearing again). Must be a massive boulder field there.
In reply to streapadair:
You get the same effect here but I much prefer this one
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=134258
I see what you mean about the oversaturation now... I'm new to this, I've just bought a camera.
> The 50k OS map does show the stream in the B.Fhada gully disappearing for 100m or so (then re-appearing for 200m and disappearing again). Must be a massive boulder field there.
You get the same effect here but I much prefer this one
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/images/dbpage.php?id=134258
I see what you mean about the oversaturation now... I'm new to this, I've just bought a camera.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Really? You were posting very confidently yesterday about exposure histograms and so on.
> I see what you mean about the oversaturation now... I'm new to this, I've just bought a camera.
Really? You were posting very confidently yesterday about exposure histograms and so on.
Post edited at 16:24
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes really, there's no inconsistency. I've processed images (not photos) for professional reasons for years, so could see 'information loss', which I didn't and still don't like. The increased saturation (I should have said instead of ovesaturation) doesn't do this but after seeing a few I admit they can seem garish.
I spent an idle 20mins looking through the galleries to consider the aesthetic rather than technical qualities.
(post edited to tone down techiness)
> Really? You were posting very confidently yesterday about exposure histograms and so on.
Yes really, there's no inconsistency. I've processed images (not photos) for professional reasons for years, so could see 'information loss', which I didn't and still don't like. The increased saturation (I should have said instead of ovesaturation) doesn't do this but after seeing a few I admit they can seem garish.
I spent an idle 20mins looking through the galleries to consider the aesthetic rather than technical qualities.
(post edited to tone down techiness)
Post edited at 16:43
In reply to FrankBooth:
Looking carefully at this I'm convinced that there has been significant reworking of the rock using something like Topaz Clean plugin then layered back onto the original. The highlights on the rock are wholly unnatural. Furthermore flat light on the valley floor does seem natural but as you move up through the picture everything becomes more 'fake'. The blurred rock does not match the clean waterfall. Why would the light be so bright higher up compared to the floor (the top of the picture is only about half way up the the crag and c2000ft below the summit)?
Initially I liked it but the more I look at it the more I am disappointed.
Looking carefully at this I'm convinced that there has been significant reworking of the rock using something like Topaz Clean plugin then layered back onto the original. The highlights on the rock are wholly unnatural. Furthermore flat light on the valley floor does seem natural but as you move up through the picture everything becomes more 'fake'. The blurred rock does not match the clean waterfall. Why would the light be so bright higher up compared to the floor (the top of the picture is only about half way up the the crag and c2000ft below the summit)?
Initially I liked it but the more I look at it the more I am disappointed.
In reply to Toccata:
This confused me too when I first saw, but I actually think it is cloud/heavy rain and not a post-processing effect.
> Why would the light be so bright higher up compared to the floor (the top of the picture is only about half way up the the crag and c2000ft below the summit)?
This confused me too when I first saw, but I actually think it is cloud/heavy rain and not a post-processing effect.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
In the above link, the photographer says "People go on about you can shoot fine at one over the focal length but I bump it up a bit."
Anyone explain this to me please?
In the above link, the photographer says "People go on about you can shoot fine at one over the focal length but I bump it up a bit."
Anyone explain this to me please?
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
I think he is referring to a simple guide to shutter speed and focal length. If you use a focal length of 50 mm then you can get a sharp image at 1/50 sec or faster. I used it a lot in 35 mm film days - it doesn't transfer to DX cameras but I think the D800 that Mark uses is FX so it would be relevant. He used an 85mm lens so shot at faster than 1/85 sec in fact using 1/320 sec.
I think he is referring to a simple guide to shutter speed and focal length. If you use a focal length of 50 mm then you can get a sharp image at 1/50 sec or faster. I used it a lot in 35 mm film days - it doesn't transfer to DX cameras but I think the D800 that Mark uses is FX so it would be relevant. He used an 85mm lens so shot at faster than 1/85 sec in fact using 1/320 sec.
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Many thanks.
Many thanks.
In reply to Mark Bull:
Yes, he said their was a squall moving through in the interview in the link.
> This confused me too when I first saw, but I actually think it is cloud/heavy rain and not a post-processing effect.
Yes, he said their was a squall moving through in the interview in the link.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes, and as with any similar image I am sure he will have made some decisions about which areas to sharpen and adjust in various ways.
It's almost impossible to say exactly what has been done here, but his need to go for a fast shutter speed and the poor conditions have probably contributed to the dark, painted look of the picture. Probably to compensate he has ramped up the white level and added a fair amount of sharpening or local contrast to the lower part of the picture - this regains the detail and the 'pop' of the water and highlights. Maybe not. Just looks that way.
Personally I really like it. Although some of the others are nice (and would be among my best shots if I had taken them), only the first should seriously have been considered in a competition IMHO.
Remember that, since he will have been shooting raw and in manual, the camera isn't making any decisions about contrast etc. It's just capturing information. If the exposure is low or high it's going to start losing information. In general, as long as the image wasn't off the end of the graph, the brightness or 'apparent exposure' of the final image is absolutely a post-processing decision.
(edited for clarity)
Yes, and as with any similar image I am sure he will have made some decisions about which areas to sharpen and adjust in various ways.
It's almost impossible to say exactly what has been done here, but his need to go for a fast shutter speed and the poor conditions have probably contributed to the dark, painted look of the picture. Probably to compensate he has ramped up the white level and added a fair amount of sharpening or local contrast to the lower part of the picture - this regains the detail and the 'pop' of the water and highlights. Maybe not. Just looks that way.
Personally I really like it. Although some of the others are nice (and would be among my best shots if I had taken them), only the first should seriously have been considered in a competition IMHO.
Remember that, since he will have been shooting raw and in manual, the camera isn't making any decisions about contrast etc. It's just capturing information. If the exposure is low or high it's going to start losing information. In general, as long as the image wasn't off the end of the graph, the brightness or 'apparent exposure' of the final image is absolutely a post-processing decision.
(edited for clarity)
Post edited at 13:35
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...