Rocks and grasses

[AntonioCorreia]

Only after photographing this rocky slope, where I took several shots, did I realise the fascinating interplay between the imposing rocks and the vegetation that sneaks through the crevices.
There is a clear tension between the sculptural solidity of the blocks and the delicacy of the grasses in a space that invites reflection on the transformations that carve, shape, and will continue to mould this natural environment.

In post-processing, I made some brightness corrections to further highlight what might be a stream of water flowing during the rainy season.

[DanK]

I very much like shots of this kind. However, I think it needs postprocessing. It's dark and lacking in contrast. It's just my taste, but I also think that images like can benefit from some slight exaggeration of texture, contrast, etc.

I did an extremely fast beginning of an edit to show what I mean. It's not complete. First, I used a curve to brighten the image (pulling up the midtones) and to add a bit of midtone contrast (with an S-curve). I then selected the greens. I used that mask first to brighten them and then to add some texture via local contrast. Finally, I dodged the greens in the top right. By no means a finished edit, but I think it shows the directions I would take this.

[purplehaze]

Nice image, Antonio. I appreciate the contrasts in volume and texture, but I agree with Dan that it is a bit flat and could use some selective editing and enhancement.

[AntonioCorreia]

Thank you very much, Dan, for the work you did on my photograph.
I genuinely like your edit, as it brings out something of what I feel is essential in the image.
As usual, you’ve used Curves, which I still haven’t quite mastered, although I’ve been making a few clumsy attempts. I’ll have to keep at it, as I can tell Curves is a very powerful tool.

From what you wrote, it seems you applied Curves to the whole image.
I did that too, but I also added a mask to isolate the green areas and make them stand out more - and did the same with the oranges.
So, it was a slightly erratic Curves edit, but I think it turned out reasonably well.

Of course, monitors and their calibration play a role too, giving rise to different views - or rather, different perceptions - of colours, tones and contrast, not to mention our own personal taste.

I took many photos here. I’ve got more from this same afternoon that I’ll be sharing later on, and I really hope I can count on your opinion, which I truly value.

[AntonioCorreia]

Thank you so much for your kind comment !
Cheers ! 😊

[DanK]

Antonio,

You can think of the curves tool as creating a new histogram, although not one that his shown. If a point on the curve is above the diagonal, those pixels are made brighter. If below the diagonal, they become darker. This would produce a modified histogram along the side of the graph.

You can see that your histogram actually darkened some of the midtones and left other midtones alone, while it brightened some of the brightest pixels. However, there are almost no pixels in the area you brightened. So, it didn't brighten the image overall, and it produced relatively little contrast because the s-curve doesn't bend back down in the region where there are many pixels.

Compare that to this one, which is somewhat similar to what I used on your photo:



You can see that midtones are brightened and that you get an S shape within the region that has a lot of pixels. In addition, I raised the black point a tiny bit. The result is an image that is brighter and higher contrast.

Dan

[AntonioCorreia]

Thank you so much Dan for this small and important tip. Much appreciated !
-
I would like to emphasise that the following text is in no way intended to diminish the value of comments and observations, but merely to share a thought that occasionally crosses my mind. I’m equally curious to hear your views on this matter and would be glad if you shared your perspective.
Am I thinking clearly ?

I’ve noticed a growing tendency to seek almost absolute perfection in photographs, often through editing techniques that make images extremely sharp and flawless. However, I wonder whether, in pursuing this ideal or model of perfection, we might be losing some of the character and authenticity that small imperfections can bring to an image.

Much like a Persian rug — carefully woven but intentionally flawed in its pattern to symbolise that only the divine is perfect — photographic imperfections can also be seen as marks of authenticity and humanity. These small flaws can tell a story, bring life to an image, and draw the viewer in more closely, creating greater communicability.

Let us also think of a book filled with notes. A brand-new book may be pristine and untouched, but a book with folded pages, underlinings and handwritten notes reveals its own story — showing how someone interacted with it, making it unique and special. That book.

In the same way, imperfections in a photograph can serve as those personal traces, adding depth and emotion to the image. Sometimes, it’s precisely those less polished details that give a photograph its personality and make it more interesting or memorable. Imperfections can add richness, feeling, and perhaps even bring us closer to the photographer’s original intent.

[AntonioCorreia]

In the world of photography, there is no single path to creating powerful and memorable images. Both the pursuit of technical perfection and the appreciation of imperfections have their place – and, in fact, can coexist very effectively.

On the one hand, some photographers prioritise precision, sharpness, and absolute control over every detail. This approach allows them to convey a clear message, eliminate distractions, and highlight the author’s intent, using every technical tool available. It’s a perspective that reflects rigour, professionalism, and respect for the art form.

On the other hand, there are those who find in small imperfections – a touch of blur, an unexpected shadow, a more visible grain – the opportunity to convey emotion, spontaneity, and authenticity. These personal marks can transform a photograph into something unique, full of story and character, drawing the viewer closer to the photographer’s lived experience.

In truth, nothing prevents these two approaches from being used together. A photographer may, for example, apply careful editing to ensure overall image quality, while choosing to retain certain imperfect elements that add personality and emotion. In this way, technique and creative instinct complement each other, allowing for images that are both technically sound and emotionally expressive.

This flexibility is one of the great strengths of contemporary photography. It enables each photographer to find their own balance and style, adapting to the subject, the context, and the message they wish to convey. The key lies in knowing, consciously, when to refine – and when to let imperfection tell part of the story.

I’d love to know how each of you sees this possibility of combining the best of both worlds. Share your experiences. I truly believe that real creativity emerges from this diversity of approaches.

Big thanks again to Dan, for all the effort and for always offering thoughtful suggestions on how to make images even better.
I truly hope this doesn’t upset you.

Much appreciated !

[Round Tuit]

Antonio,

It looks to me like you see a dichotomy between "technical" vs "emotional" photos that does not really exists. What you regard as technically perfect photos can and often are charged with emotions. Likewise, elements that you qualify as imperfections can be effectively used to enhance the message that a photographer want to send. In which case they are not imperfections but compositional elements chosen by the photographer to express his vision.

What is important to remember when processing a photo is that the camera can never capture what your eyes saw. It is up to you to use all the tools at your disposal to transform the raw file into your vision. Once you are satisfied with your creation there are no more imperfections.

[DanK]

Antonio,

I don't agree with you.

As Ansel Adams said, the negative is the score, while the print is the performance. Andre made much the same point:

It is up to you to use all the tools at your disposal to transform the raw file into your vision.

If an imperfection is something the photographer wants as part of the performance, then I agree that it can make the photo better. But imperfections that just happen to be there, or that the photographer just didn't take the time to fix, are just that: imperfections.

I'll use an example that created an argument when I showed it 10 years ago:



This was taken early in the morning on a very cloudy day. The variations in the light background are slight differences in the darkness of the clouds. One person said that these are imperfections that should be removed. Another responded, using a Japanese term I have forgotten, that these subtle variations are part of what makes the photo interesting. I agreed with the second person: I thought the image would look flat, artificial, and less interesting if I made the background uniform. In that case, the "imperfection" happened to be there, but it remained because I wanted it, not because I decided not to take the time to remove it.

This comes up fairly often in doing flower macros: once you have the image on the computer, you see that there are very small bugs on the flower that you didn't see when taking the photo. That presents a choice for the photographer: is the image more appealing with or without the bugs? It's a matter of taste and judgment, but in working on my images, my decision is more often that they have to go.

Dan

[purplehaze]

Yes, I think the notion of "imperfection" only has relevance to the maker's vision of the final work. My own aesthetic ranges across a broad spectrum. I love the detail that can be wrought from high megapixel cameras, but I also love the softness of my Lensbaby Velvet 85 held wide open. Achieving either calls on technique, which all too often falls short in my case, but that is the challenge that makes the hobby worthwhile. When it comes to the "imperfections" inherent to our equipment, I prefer to think of that as "character". My Nikkor 300 mm PF lens definitely has character. I love it. I should use it more often. Old photographs with their "imperfections" have character that our editing suites invite us to emulate.

When it comes to the kind of imperfections Dan was talking about, I am sometimes inclined to be documentary, which means keeping the bugs; other times, interpretive, which means taking them out.