NikonGear'23
Images => Life, the Universe & Everything Else => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on December 20, 2016, 19:43:34
-
not sure if this is the right place to post this -
I enjoyed the images very much - I hope you do too.
It's not about "are the images good" - for me it was "what do other photographers see"
whatever it is for you - enjoy. I did
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/best-photos-2016/#/rooftop.ngsversion.1480971824666.jpg
-
Elsa, thanks for the direction.
Some impressive images, yes. I also feel that the over-processed images are in fashion. It may enhance the dramatic scenes, but, to me, they look rather sterile...
-
Akira this is true. I have noticed recently that this seems to be the trend.
Even with the Hasseblad photographers - their stuff is very dramatised
Sometimes is creates something too surreal in some way
-
Thanks for sharing Elsa.
Majority are not real, but that's today's trend. Not for me...
-
Akira this is true. I have noticed recently that this seems to be the trend.
Even with the Hasseblad photographers - their stuff is very dramatised
Sometimes is creates something too surreal in some way
Maybe the clients wants those dramatized images rather than the photographers. People are too much accustomed to the manipulated visibilities.
I love artistic manipulations often posted here in NG, but not these ones...
-
I don't like over-processed pics too, but none of these from NG disturbed me this way.
Awesome pics.
The vulture pics are simply stunning.
Thank you for posting Elsa.
-
For decades this has been NG's style [edit: NG=National Geographic]. You call it over-processed if you like.
-
Thanks for sharing Elsa.
Majority are not real, but that's today's trend. Not for me...
Yes, it is pretty pointless to produce fake images of nature.
-
For decades this has been NG's style. You called it over-processed if you like.
Just to make sure: you mean National Geographic by NG, right? I meant NikonGear by NG in my post. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Oups, yes I meant National Geographic. I overlooked that it could also mean Nikon Gear .....
and what is "fake" or what is "real" in an already two dimensional rendering ?
-
Viewing any image is subjective. It is inevitable with any competition, that images will be chosen by a panel of judges and photographers will comment with "WHAT THE F WERE THEY THINKING"
Usually its the general public that will be in awe of those images. not other photographers. But we dont car - right? :)
In the 3 years I have been doing stock - Shutterstock's library grew from 25mil to 100 million photos. Who these days don't take photos? One of the few ways to make your images stand out - is editing. Because - for 99% of images out there - there are several who have done it before, and done it well.
-
and what is "fake" or what is "real" in an already two dimensional rendering ?
There are lots of answers, but one would be putting in some significant picture element that was not there when the photo was taken.
-
There are lots of answers, but one would be putting in some significant picture element that was not there when the photo was taken.
A photograph is made up of elements that were never there: the real world is not still, it does not have depth of field, and it is not black and white, eg. Above all, the real world does not have edges, and a picture must; if there are no edges it is not a picture, it is virtual reality.
Surely the issue is treating both the person looking at the picture and the subject of the picture - person, animal or landscape - with respect: treating the viewer and the subject as an end in himself/herself/itself, not merely as a means to an end. In photographic terms that may put a limit on post-processing, but more importantly it means not making the subject an object of amusement or derision or idle curiosity, and not making the viewer a gawper. So, it is not enhancing the drama of a landscape that is wrong, it is enhancing the drama of a landscape because that is an easy way to make some viewers go "wow" and all you care about is having some viewers go "wow".
-
Bjørn, I cannot agree with your first paragraph. Things in nature are there, even if only for a moment. For the rest, I think you are not distinguishing what is there from how we perceive or interpret what is there. Depth of field is only a matter of perception, and black and white is an artistic representation of what is there. Nature does not have edges, but human perception does.
This is very different from the issue of putting in important elements which were not there in the first place. Take, for example, the first picture in the National Geo series. If the two men were really there on the edge of the tall building, then Wow! If they were not, well, congratulations to the skill of the pp creator, but zero marks for producing a worthwhile nature photograph. Same for others in that series, including the man diving into the stream, the diver with the shark, the large herd of rhino and the kids with the monkey.
-
I think all these pictures are well within the acceptabel range of processing IMO. As documentary photos they still work as intended. As art or expressing your own feeling when viewing a scene, anything goes, but representing NatGeo one have to keep the processing within limits. What bothers me with their style, sometimes, is how clean their images are. Some of them look like they were taken in a studio. But thats just my personal taste.
-
Makes me happy with the high level of images I see here on our own NikonGear!
-
Erik - yes. We have seen photos here that are really top notch. Okey not every day - but there has been some really special ones.
-
I liked the link, thanks Elsa
#49 the image of the vultures as seen from inside the carcass, yes over processed, but an amazing image IMO
-
Most of these seem to be 'straight shots', that is: not composited. That's a good thing.
It is nice to see that the Adobe Clarity slider(or it's equivalent in other software) has only been overused on a few pictures.
I almost always find NatGeo's underwater stuff to be fascinating and enjoyable.
And, as I expect from NatGeo, when artificial lighting is brought into above ground scenes, it is often deployed in poor taste.
-
Here are National Geographic's "Your Shot" guidelines; one could think, similar guidelines apply internally:
"YOUR SHOT PHOTO GUIDELINES
We allow and encourage all types of photography. We love to see new photography and watch our members experiment with creative styles and techniques. We are device agnostic, happy to see images from full-frame DSLRs, film cameras, smartphones, and others. Our biggest ask is that the photos stay true to your personal vision and to what you saw. Please avoid heavy-handed processing. We want to see the world through your eyes, not through the excessive use of editing tools. If the photograph is manipulated, please describe your process in the caption. Below are some basic photo guidelines.
ETHICS: National Geographic supports ethical photography that accurately represents cultures, ecosystems, and wildlife. We expect that the welfare of people, animals, and their environments take precedence over photography. In other words, don’t harm or manipulate the subject or its environment for the sake of creating an image.
CAPTION: We insist on truth in captioning and expect full disclosure in the story behind the photo. The description should be complete and accurate. Not only does this establish trust and lend greater credibility to your photo, but it also increases the engagement of the viewer.
BURNING AND DODGING: Brightening or darkening specific areas in an image is allowed but should be kept to a minimum and not done to the point where it is obvious. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should only be to adjust the dynamic tonal range and color balance of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw and communicates the mood of the scene.
CROPPING: Cropping is allowed, but composing the image in-camera is always ideal.
CLONING: Cloning is not allowed.
BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY: Converting your color photos to black and white is acceptable.
STITCHED PANORAMAS: These are allowed only if the segments were all made within the same time frame. Don't create panoramas with sections made at significantly different times. Do not change focal length while creating a stitched image. Do not stretch the meaning of panorama to include elements that weren't in the scene as you saw it. If your photo is a stitched image, please indicate so in the caption.
COMPOSITE OR HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR): These shots are allowed only if the combined parts are made at the same time. Don't submit final images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset. If your photo is an HDR image, please indicate this in the caption.
FILTERS: We allow filters on photographs. We ask that you please include a description of how the style was achieved and which filter or technique was used. Use discretion, however, as overprocessing can often make the photo look cartoonish.
WATERMARKS: Your Shot always credits the author of a photo whenever and wherever it appears on the site, along with providing a link to the author's profile. Because of this, there's no need to watermark your photo. A small and subtle watermark is allowed but not encouraged—we want to see your photograph without any distractions.
INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT: Any content that violates the National Geographic Terms of Service will be removed from the site. This includes inappropriate, pornographic or offensive, or otherwise objectionable content, hate speech, and copyright violations. Your assistance in notifying us of photos or profiles that may violate the Terms of Service is appreciated."
I found some additional guidelines in connection with "Instagram" type of pictures:
(http://icdn8.digitaltrends.com/image/nat-geo-photo-guide-668x554.jpg)