1-17-13 Four Rivers

Decided to play a bit with some of the presets in Lightroom. Love to hear what anyone thinks.

Original

Original

Cyanotype

Cyanotype

Sepia

Sepia

Selenium

Selenium

All opinions requested.

13 responses to “1-17-13 Four Rivers

  1. Well, I am not a photo anything: so here is my take.
    The first looks like water.
    The second looks like wallpaper.
    The third looks like the desert.
    The fourth looks like a waffled sky.
    There…from one who likes to look at beautiful original photos that record a moment in time!
    Cheers.

  2. I like them all. The original is striking, the sepia mysterious, the selenium chilly, the other blue evocative of endless open ocean…They do all strongly evoke different things, different moods. An interesting exploration, and literal journey of looking through different filters and how that alters one’s point of view. Always good to be reminded of the fact that perspective is everything. Thank you.

  3. I like them all. The original is striking, the sepia mysterious, the selenium chilly, the other blue evocative of endless open ocean…They do all strongly evoke different things, different moods. An interesting exploration, and literal journey of looking through different filters and how that alters one’s point of view. Always good to be reminded of the fact that point of view is everything. Thank you.

  4. Wow, I really like all of them, and I suppose it depends on the mood you’re in or going for as to when to use what. The differences from the original are striking, but I prefer the original. I’m not fond of the sepia, but blues are very calming, so I always enjoy them. Cheers! Jerri

  5. It’s awfully easy to get sucked into all the bells and whistles of Lightroom or Photoshop or a hundred other programs. In my experience, people tend to go overboard at first and then gradually become much more cautious about applying filters and adjustments. As I see it, the idea is to use these tools to enhance your message/impression, but not to make them the focal point. You want someone to say, “Gee, I ought to think differently about poverty/natural beauty/whatever,” rather than “Gee, I wonder what filter he was using to get this effect?” So, with regard to the images above, which one do you think most represents the reality or impression you wanted to make?

    • I never use the filters. So it was play time. My reality is the original BUT, many of the truly great photogs of the past used these tools, some consciously because they were serious about their work and some because that was the process available at the time.
      The Nikon photo group on LinkedIn had a long discussion about reality, photoshop and photography. What constitutes “acceptable” manipulation. No group answer came to the front.

      • My roots are in photojournalism, where there’s an understandable emphasis on trying to achieve a dispassionate depiction of reality. And I’m not averse to filters, even though my command of, say, neutral density filters is sloppy. I had nothing short of an obsession with polarizing filters for a while. My only complaint is when the filter “trick” becomes more obvious than the message of the image. The late ad genius Jay Chiat used to criticize ads that used cheap effects to get attention as “doing tricks in public.” That’s kind of how I feel about certain manipulated images.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s