Surreal, over the top landscape or natural? How much is too much processing?
I am not the same person that I was twenty years ago. I like different food, music, art and even different photos. Growth comes from change both personally and creatively. In the few short years since I have returned to shooting the landscapes that I love, my opinions on what constitutes a good landscape has changed. Back in the late sixties and early seventies I was fixated on the large format color photos of Elliot Porter, incredibly detailed with color unlike anything that I had seen before. Forward a few years to the more elegant but visually amazing American Southwest landscapes of David Muench. I absolutely loved his work. It contrasted the subtleties that Porter captured.
When I returned to landscapes more than twenty years later it wasn’t the photos of Porter or Muench that attracted me. I was drawn into the wild colors and tones of HDRs. I am almost embarrassed to say that. They were unlike anything that I had ever seen. Was this what the new world of digital landscape photography looked like?
Through the years when I was doing other things, I would thumb through the odd coffee table book in the library. Nothing really grabbed me. Galen Rowell was supposedly THE photographer of that time but his photos never compared to what I was seeing in climbing magazines and books. Landscapes just didn’t interest me. It seemed that the “art” of landscape photography was frozen, at least to me.
I started dabbling with Photomatix and my new digital SLR. It was fun. No more waiting two weeks for Kodachromes to be returned from Vancouver or wherever it was that they processed them. I could drive out of town and an hour later be at home experimenting with processing. The results were garish. I cringe when I look at them today. Obviously I went overboard with the special effects. Looking back, I realize what I was trying to do. I was trying to make the sky look dramatic. Too dramatic. Crank up the strengh slider in Photomatix and voila. CGI like skies. Some of them even sold as stock. OMFG! They were really terrible.
A few years later, I definitely know what I like and don’t like. I hope that the images that I process today will be in a way that won’t having me cringe in the future.
There is a tendency among some of the more popular landscape photographers on websites like Flickr, 500px and 1X to be very heavy handed with their skies and tones. Processing landscapes is similar to making movies in how far you can push things before they are not believable. There are some photographers that I recognize by their skies. They are all identical in how much they are darkened or how purple or orange they look. They do this for a reason. Not every sunset is dramatic. Not every cloudy sky looks ominous. Not every morning sunrise is ablaze with color.
Adding color to a photo is like adding sugar or salt to your food. It’s easy to get used to a teaspoon and then another and another again. Before you know it your food is oozing sugar or salt. The temptation is always there to go too far. Sometimes the best thing to do is to save your image an re-visit it a day or two later. That’s something that I’ve been doing more of lately and it’s made a difference at how I look at what I do.
How much is too much for you? Only you can decide but expect your opinion to keep changing. It’s part of your growth.
Happy shooting,
Dan
ps. Hopefully things turn around soon for landscapes. The next few days have snow forecast. 
It’s snowing as I write this. I’ve already shoveled the driveway once this morning and it will need to be done again before the day is over. Yippee!!
Much common sense as usual, Dan, and superb image! Always look forward to your blogs. Anne.
tripodtrippin said this on January 21, 2013 at 10:01 am
I’ve been experimenting with Photomatix, and always wondered what were your settings… until you posted a screen shot of them. Processed the HDR according to the settings, but not in the pursuit of making my images look like yours, but just to try it out. I understand that Photomatix is probably just the beginning, but it’s a starting point.
So what am I trying to say…. is that the starting point of an image can be similar but we all end up in a different place. Like you said tastes change, and that also affects how we process our images, or how we even take our images. Thank you for the glimpse into your Photomatix, I have it saved, but already modified it to my likings
Mac said this on January 21, 2013 at 10:30 am
@ Mac, Exactly! That was my intent. That pre-set is also only a starting point for me. Not every scene is the same. They all need to be treated in their own way. Kinda like kids.
No secrets here. Sharing with others helps improve what I do.
Dan
Dan Jurak said this on January 21, 2013 at 10:34 am
A great and informative post Dan-and could´nt agree more about thing´s being overdone. ( I have been guilty of that myself). It seems to me that, composition, subject and HDR make good bedfellows, that forced marriage between all and any photo and HDR that is so prevalent these days- leaves me cold-it´s nice too see it done in a creative and measured way- something we can all learn from-very beautiful work on you´re part
Adrian said this on January 21, 2013 at 1:49 pm
@ Adrian, it’s always hard to be objective with something we are close to. That’s why I try and wait a day or two before posting anything. My acid test for HDRs is that if looks like an HDR it has failed. Hopefully the photo is scene as a moving landscape rather than a technique or a filter.
Thank you for commenting and visiting
Dan
Dan Jurak said this on January 21, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Dan
You never fail to amaze me with your work …. but when I read your blog ( I am aware I am not the center of the universe ) I have this strange feeling that you are writing it with me in mind … lol …. my god ..I do that … do I do that … hope I don’t do that are some of the things running through my head … your are such an oasis of honesty in this electronic world
thank you so very much
Ray Rhodes said this on January 21, 2013 at 5:00 pm
@ Ray, I hate to disappoint you. YOU ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE! Everything that I have written was with you in mind. In fact, the only reason I am on Flickr is to keep track of you. BTW, your art is progressing nicely.
Seriously, thank you. There is so much BS, pretentiousness and ego boosting in the photo world. I figure that if I feel that way there have to be others that feel similarly.
Ray, this post’s for you,
Dan
Dan Jurak said this on January 21, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Yippee indeed Dan. My wife does not hold the same fovor for the snow and wonders why I an happly shoveling out there. When the sun comes back, maybe by Thursday, winter should be back in it’s glory for us to enjoy. Some though will have to wait until Saturday morning to get out. Enjoy Dan!
Bryan Flaman said this on January 21, 2013 at 6:38 pm
@ Bryan Yippee indeed! Give me lots of snow, heavy hoar frost or a blizzard with huge drifts. That for me is winter photography. I too have been watching the forecast and Thursday morning looks the best so far.
Take care
Dan
Dan Jurak said this on January 21, 2013 at 6:52 pm
LMAO ….what a great start to my day
Ray Rhodes said this on January 22, 2013 at 4:18 am
Great post. I’ve been going back through my photo library and I’ve seen some where I gave 4 stars but now wonder why I even thought those images were great. I’ve also gone back and tried to reprocess some of them and I discovered that Photomatix Pro does a lot better job then the Photomatix plugin for Aperture 3.
jbmac said this on February 1, 2013 at 11:48 pm
@ jbmac, I’ve not used the plugin so I have no comparison. As for going through old photos, it’s interesting how I tastes and ideas on photos can change over time isn’t it?
Dan Jurak said this on February 2, 2013 at 10:27 am
Ya it is interesting. I’m glad my library is pretty well organized and I’ve rated my photos, so it’s interesting and informative for me to see how my photography has developed. It’s really been kind of a mix where I thought my old images were really bad compared to what I do now and there are times when I think I’ve gone backwards, where my past work seemed to be better.
jbmac said this on February 2, 2013 at 10:36 am
Hello, I have been following your posts for about eighteen months now, so I thought I would say hello. You are so giving of your images and thoughts – very rare and delightful. Hope things are warming up over there..:)
Helen Boyd said this on March 4, 2013 at 1:54 am
@ Helen, thank you for stopping by.
The weather in central Alberta hasn’t been good for landscapes the past few weeks. Unless we get a big snow storm or something unusual, I probably won’t photograph anything new until May. There are always a few months in the spring in Alberta where things are brown, icy and/or wet. Or I could drive four hours to Jasper or Banff?
I imagine that things are starting to go green in the UK?
All the best,
Dan
Dan Jurak said this on March 4, 2013 at 6:23 am
hope its not too late, but this thread has really hit home. I am going through a period of over the top right now when it comes to post processing. I guess I am experimenting to a degree. For a while I thought photos should be as realistic as possible and as sharp as possible. I think especially for beginners it is good to go for realism, in that one must learn the technical side of their equipment. Once they know their camera and have a good handle on post processing, then they are in a better position to go crazy, so to speak, and will have the ability and control to better represent their intended treatment of the subject. Of course everyone learns differently.
These days I find myself cranking up the saturation past points of realism. I know it is not realistic, but I am trying to disregard the rules and learn while doing so.
I have recently discovered Shadows/Highlights in photoshop, and using (or abusing) can give a look similar to HDR. I will eventually calm down with my saturation and over processing, but in the mean time I am learning and the experience will no doubt help me one day.
Dan, your posted picture here is very nice. It is so warm looking. Although very natural looking, it must be HDR, as there is very little chance of keeping the foreground that detailed without blowing out the sky. I think it is and excellent example of HDR well done for what is was likely originally intended, simply to extend the dynamic range of what is typically small for digital cameras.
Having said that I think that the over the top HDR with it’s halos and shadowed highlights could have it’s place, I have not found a use for it yet. One thing I can say is that if one is trying to make a serious image is that “over the top” should only be used if there is a good reason for it, and I think that can be said of any processing. Every manipulation of an image should only be done for a reason.
Bernie Boutin said this on March 19, 2013 at 6:11 pm
@ Bernie, never too late to leave a comment. I think what you are doing is part of the natural progression of an artist. Kind of like cooking where you experiment with the ingredients until you find something that you really like and then a couple of years later your tastes change and so does the recipe.
The photo is indeed an HDR, not that it matters because it doesn’t. In twenty years we’ll probably have sensors that will have enough latitude that they will be able to capture far beyond what we see. In my mind the only thing that really counts is the final image. Not how it was taken or how it was processed. Just the image by itself.
There are a vocal group who feel that any kind of manipulation is “breaking the rules”. To them I say, you practice your religion and I’ll practice mine.
Dan Jurak said this on March 19, 2013 at 6:23 pm