Rugged Maine Coast

[FrankMi]

Usually I try to get an image as close as I can recall to exactly what I saw when I pressed the shutter.

I started with a three image panorama with the images taken in a triangle to capture the background in two images and a sharper third image of the foreground. Once the images were combined I had what I felt was a fairly accurate rendition of the scene on this mostly overcast day.



OK, well perhaps, but really, no great shakes as they say.

In fact, a rather ho-hum rendition of a scene that, with the sun peeping in and out of the clouds and the strong on-shore wind whipping the waves, felt a whole lot more enticing at the time.

So I thought, 'what the heck!' why not see if we could make this a bit more appealing, even if it crossed the border between true realism and artistic fantasy. My goal was to bring out the beauty of the scene without overstepping reality any more than needed to produce a pleasing rendition. I don't mind if it moves towards an 'oil painting' look provided it remains reasonably realistic.



Did I go too far? if so, where should I have been more subtle?

For those that like it, I'll provide the steps I used to bring it to this point. For those that don't - you probably aren't interested in the steps anyway!

[Geoff F]

Mostly looks OK to me, Frank. The left edge is out of focus and doesn't really add anything to the scene so I would try a crop to a different size ratio. Maybe lose a fraction from the bottom if necessary. Perhaps that might enable you to keep the same ratio?

Possibly the centre area is slightly on the bright side?

[Shadowman]

Not too far, I think it looks very good.

[FootLoose]

I don't think you have stepped over the border of reality, Frank. The colours look true to my reality here. Having said that, though, I wonder if the vegetation in the foreground is a little too bright for the composition. ie is it competing too much with the rest of the image.

[NorthernFocus]

Not overdone IMO. We all see it differently in our mind's eye anyway. Even if two people are there at the same moment in time they will likely recall it differently. I like it.

[Mike Buckley]

The reason the second one doesn't look realistic to me is that the areas that are supposedly lit by less diffuse light are still displaying the shadows of the more diffuse light. Having said that, if I had tried to do what you tried, my version wouldn't have looked nearly as good.

[Nicks Pics]

I know what you mean about attempting to match reality (after all, that's what a camera was made to do, wasn't it?) VS doing what is more attractive to you, but it is really hard to know when you play around with the white balance where it should be. Usually warmer is more attractive, for overcast images, as you did here. Anyway, considering what your project was meant to be, I don't think I would have known it was not a normal image if I had not known, maybe a processed one, but in short, I think it looks realistic.

[IzzieK]

Both looks realistic to me -- in different ways: time of day it was shot...with the clouds and without. I am with Geoff and Greg...for their suggestions to lose some of the bottom part of the foreground or blur it slightly because it is too dominant to concentrate on the scenery itself. I like the inclusion of the flag at the top though --- as it adds a little bit of human interest in the photograph itself. And there is this little white "thingy" near the top of the foreground that grabs my eyes to it before I look at the main subject of the shot itself. If you will blur that or remove it altogether, it will be nice...

[Ziggy]

Where was this one taken?

[FrankMi]

Thank you all for viewing and the wonderful comments. They are all truly appreciated!

Mostly looks OK to me, Frank. The left edge is out of focus and doesn't really add anything to the scene so I would try a crop to a different size ratio. Maybe lose a fraction from the bottom if necessary. Perhaps that might enable you to keep the same ratio?

Possibly the centre area is slightly on the bright side?

Hi Geoff, I've played with cropping some off the left and bottom and without any other changes it seems to throw the 'balance' of the image off a bit. I will seriously explore this some more, perhaps with different aspect ratios to see how to best incorporate your suggestions.

Lightening several areas was done to give the image focal points that would be there had I been able to catch the clouds in the position where the dappled sunshine and shadow were a bit more prominent.

The eye is (or at least should be) attracted to the brighter areas first and can be utilized to draw the eye to specific locations in the scene. The slightly brighter area in the scene should serve to draw the eye back to a resting place within the image but perhaps it is just a bit too bright given its size.

If you compare the two versions, in the first you may notice that the eye tends to wander around and not finding something compelling to explore, is quickly ready to move on to another image. In the second, (hopefully) there is a greater tendency to move from one light area to the next in a clockwise rotation starting at the larger central light area and, having completed a loop or two, to start to explore the areas that are more in shadow.

At least that is the plan. I'm still trying to figure out what it takes to enhance the enjoyment of an image by gently emphasizing these kinds of attributes. The more I study really great images, the more I realize that I have a lot to learn about this aspect of photography.

Not too far, I think it looks very good.

Thank you John!

I don't think you have stepped over the border of reality, Frank. The colours look true to my reality here. Having said that, though, I wonder if the vegetation in the foreground is a little too bright for the composition. ie is it competing too much with the rest of the image.

Very much appreciated, Greg! As you are the second one to mention the foreground I'll need to look seriously into reducing it's size and impact. Initially my thought was to give a place to explore AFTER the rocks and ocean were taken in but not to complete with or disturb the eye flow before it got to that part of the image. Great point!

Not overdone IMO. We all see it differently in our mind's eye anyway. Even if two people are there at the same moment in time they will likely recall it differently. I like it.

Very encouraging, Dan!

The reason the second one doesn't look realistic to me is that the areas that are supposedly lit by less diffuse light are still displaying the shadows of the more diffuse light. Having said that, if I had tried to do what you tried, my version wouldn't have looked nearly as good.

This kind of endeavor is definitely a work in progress, Mike. Having your insight and wise consul is very beneficial in learning what works, what doesn't, and why. If you have the time to expound a bit more on your observations or wish to edit, it would be much appreciated.

I know what you mean about attempting to match reality (after all, that's what a camera was made to do, wasn't it?) VS doing what is more attractive to you, but it is really hard to know when you play around with the white balance where it should be. Usually warmer is more attractive, for overcast images, as you did here. Anyway, considering what your project was meant to be, I don't think I would have known it was not a normal image if I had not known, maybe a processed one, but in short, I think it looks realistic.

Hi Nick, and thank you so much for taking the time to post your observations.

On one hand, I'm not against having the image look more appealing than reality but on the other, I definitely do not want to step over the line to where it is noticeable as that detracts from the enjoyment of the image. Artists aren't bounded by reality so that can create beautiful scenes that are compelling, dramatic, and believable, but could never be found in the real world. Photographers tend to be more bound by the real world (unless that are creating composite images). My goal is to find a way to bring out the compelling and dramatic attributes of the scenes I photograph.

Both looks realistic to me -- in different ways: time of day it was shot...with the clouds and without. I am with Geoff and Greg...for their suggestions to lose some of the bottom part of the foreground or blur it slightly because it is too dominant to concentrate on the scenery itself. I like the inclusion of the flag at the top though --- as it adds a little bit of human interest in the photograph itself. And there is this little white "thingy" near the top of the foreground that grabs my eyes to it before I look at the main subject of the shot itself. If you will blur that or remove it altogether, it will be nice...

Oh Izzie! Your sharp eyes are at it again!

The white 'thingy' is a fisherman's buoy that has washed up onto the rocks. I wonder how many folks noticed the buoy before you mentioned it? I know I didn't!

So here is the dilemma. We have a 'mystery'. Great images sometimes include a mystery object to add interest or cause the viewer to stop and more thoroughly examine the image.

The dilemma? It is both small and white. Small is usually not noticed by most folks so they never find the mystery. White, particularly bright white is an attention getter and can detract from the image. If I remove it, there is no mystery. If I darken it, fewer folks will notice and fewer yet will question its existence.

What to do? What to do? I'll need to think on that one a while. Hmmmm...

[FrankMi]

Where was this one taken?

Hi Jim, This shot was taken from beside the Portland Head Lighthouse on Casco Bay looking north. The entrance to Portland Harbor is on the left almost at the horizon.

[Mike Buckley]

Frank,

You asked me to expand on my comment about supposedly less diffuse lot displaying the same shadows as the more diffuse light.

Consider two extreme examples, which can actually occur in the same landscape (or in different landscapes). One extreme is the area of the scene lit directly by strong sunlight with no clouds obscuring it. The other extreme is the area of the scene with no direct sunlight falling upon it because the sun is so obscured by the clouds. The shadows in the area being lit directly by strong sunlight will be hard shadows (shadows whose edges are strongly defined). The shadows in the area being lit by no direct sunlight will display soft shadows (shadows whose edges are perhaps so softly defined that you can't determine where the shadow ends).

All of this has to do with the contrast of the light source, regardless of what the light source is. When the light source is the sun, if there are no clouds the light has high contrast. The more clouds between the sun and the scene, the less contrasty the light is. That's because the clouds diffuse the light.

Another way of putting it is that the light is to some extent either direct or diffuse. When using direct light, the rays of light are primarily coming from one direction, in this case, from the location of the sun. When using diffuse light, the rays of light are coming from many directions because there is diffusion material between the light source and the scene causing the light rays to disperse in many directions. In this case, the diffusion material is the clouds.

Regardless of how we describe the situation (direct or diffuse light, contrasty or less contrasty light, sunlight with or without clouds), the characteristic of the shadows in the scene will always change to become harder, more defined, when the brightness of the objects increases so long as the distance between the light source and the scene remains unchanged. (We can change that distance at any given moment when using mad-made lights but not when the only light source is the sun.) That's because the increased brightness is the result of more direct, contrasty sunlight less obscured by clouds that creates shadows that are more contrasty (their edges are harder, more defined). In your second version, the brightness of parts of the scenes change indicating more direct, contrasty light but the characteristic of the shadows remains the same, which in reality would never happen.

[Ziggy]

Hi Jim, This shot was taken from beside the Portland Head Lighthouse on Casco Bay looking north. The entrance to Portland Harbor is on the left almost at the horizon.

I knew it looked familiar. Traveled the Maine coast a few times, great trips.

[purplehaze]

Sorry to be a dissenter, Frank, as I have great respect for your skills, but I am finding it overdone for my taste. Love the detail, and the layering, but I am finding it a touch over-saturated. Or it may be that I just don't like the magenta sky, with the warm tones below. If it were mine, I would de-saturate and lose the detail in the sky, de-emphasize it altogether. To my mind, there is not enough of it to make it worth drawing our attention to, and the colour and detail compete with the main event and hem in what would otherwise be an expansive scene. I'm sure the sky was a dominant feature for you, standing there in that place, but the viewer is limited to what is within the frame, and looking at this, I am thinking that the limited perspective of the viewfinder may, for me, anyway, impose some artistic choices. Just riffin' here, no need to pay me any mind.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Frank I agree with the others about FG,it is a bit competing with the rest of the scene. I like your edit with lively colors. I loved the row of red leaves at the BG on the left.

[FrankMi]

Hi Mike, thank you for expounding on your observations. I'll need to keep that in mind moving forward.

I was using this as an experiment to see if I could introduce a bit of the Thomas Kinkade 'Painter of Light' look to my images. Of course his paintings are not of real subjects so he could introduce whatever look and feel he wanted. I'll continue down this path for a while as opportunities present themselves but I will be mindful of your keenly articulated comments. Thank you again!

[FrankMi]

Hi Janis, no need to apologize for your valuable viewpoint, I prefer that folks speak their mind as I don't learn very much about other viewpoints and preferences otherwise.

As I mentioned to Mike, I'm searching for a particular look and that, by its very nature won't appeal to everyone. It is a journey and the result I am striving for certainly isn't perfected at this point in time. I'll keep searching for a better way to express it.

Thanks again!

[Mike Buckley]

I was using this as an experiment to see if I could introduce a bit of the Thomas Kinkade 'Painter of Light' look to my images. Of course his paintings are not of real subjects so he could introduce whatever look and feel he wanted.

My thinking is that the more you want to take advantage of the Kincaid look, the more surrealistic you will want to make your images. You could produce some wonderful images that look less like photos and more like the genre of photo art that emulates whatever medium of non-photography art that appeals to you.

[FrankMi]

Hi Frank I agree with the others about FG,it is a bit competing with the rest of the scene. I like your edit with lively colors. I loved the row of red leaves at the BG on the left.

I'm glad you took the time to comment Binnur. Yes, the consensus seems to be, minimize the foreground, desaturate the brightest parts of the rocks, but not by too much, minimize the bright white buoy, and tone down the sky a bit - it all has to do with finding the most pleasing balance in the scene without loosing its impact.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Frank I googled Thomas Kinkade and saw some of his paintings on the internet. I like them because I like different styles in art. IMO if you want to make your images look like Thomas Kinkade's paintings, you need to add some blur to your images. I added a glamour glow filter to your second image in Color Efex Pro 4 to get a closer look to Thomas Kinkade's style, would you like to see it?

Hi Mike, thank you for expounding on your observations. I'll need to keep that in mind moving forward.

I was using this as an experiment to see if I could introduce a bit of the Thomas Kinkade 'Painter of Light' look to my images. Of course his paintings are not of real subjects so he could introduce whatever look and feel he wanted. I'll continue down this path for a while as opportunities present themselves but I will be mindful of your keenly articulated comments. Thank you again!