It seems to me it is the light surrounding the lake in the second photo (creating an obvious contrast between the lake and the landscape) which draws the eye in. Regardless of how compelling a subject may be, good light will always make it more so.
I agree. Also, while I understand that the dark lake makes it more of a subject, when the picture taken without the polarizer lens is on the right in the vid, it looks like some of the clouds are reflected in the lake which, to me, makes the whole image more about something and less of something.
My thought, as well. It's the light striking the bottom left side of the lake's shoreline (in the second photo) that gives the lake definition and makes it an interesting subject. Darkening the lake with a polarizer enhances this effect somewhat, but it really isn't necessary.
I agree the polarizer helps the photo of the lake, but i think the bigger reason the second lake photo is better is because the light around the lake creates contrast which draws the eyes. The first photo has light on the right which is distracting.
I’m one of those who thinks you over do the brown. I’m all for autumn colours - love them, but turning full leaf trees brown when it’s obvs spring or summer simply looks wrong, unless you want to convey a landscape scorched by radiation... imo anyway. Green is a wonderful colour. It’s the colour of life. Not sure why you seem to avoid embracing it. :)
James did seem to go from "dark greens convey emotion, loneliness...." to oranges...Seeing him work in the light greens of spring and new growth would have been fun.
I think it's generation thing. I did learn photography in times, where the moment you press the shutter button determined the outcome of the effort. In the dark room there were some possibilities to manipulate, but compared to what is possible (and done) today, that was minuscule. Nowadays, the shutter button moment is only a tool to collect data, which are used to create a picture at the computer. A photo is no longer a representation of reality, but the created picture of an imagined reality.
I think one can rely on too much on computer editing to hopefully fix a bad photo. To me, the old film rule of 'excellence is in the can' still applies. Good/great photos can be enhanced by editing but you are starting out with quality. I think James' point is along this line; if quality is not there to begin with editing is pointless.
@@washingtonradio I understand and I agree, that this is part of James' message with this video. But it doesn't change the fact that an altered reality is presented with photos like that. You surely know the expression of a painting being photorealistic. That term didn't come by accident. It says, that this picture is done in a way, that it almost perfectly shows the painted situation as it is in reality, as photography was doing it till it became digital. With the term _photography_ one included the fact of an unaltered representation of a real world situation. That was even accepted as hard evidence at court. That is not the case anymore. Just the contrary, most professional photographers do spend more time in altering the pictured reality at their computers than in taking the original picture at the location. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Actually, as James hinted at, it is more like a new art form. But this is not the photography of the 19th and 20th century anymore. It is something new, where a photo is just an ingredient to create art.
But still we selected a film up front to alter the image. Kodachrome, Kodak Gold and Fujifilm Velvia would not give the same results in the end. One might say that this is a form of editing as well.
@@fotografi4fun That's true, we had different films with different color representations. We even had black&white film, and nature isn't b&w. But that's a completely different ball park to what is either possible or done with today's computer editing. That's more like different sensors or different color science software of a camera influences the color output of that camera. I don't think that anyone would argue that selecting a particular camera because of its color representation is comparable to editing a RAW file. You couldn't select a single color to be suppressed or enhanced, you couldn't straighten or curve a line as you wanted, or remove freckles or wrinkles after you've took the photo. There was not something similar to editing after you had taken the shot, only some minor manipulation options in the dark room. These were (and are) absolutely not comparable to what can be done and is done with editing at a computer. And I think you know that.
James, please put up that Vlog. We like your rambling, part of why I watch, anyway! It’s great to see you being excited about getting back out, gives inspiration to get out too.
I agree the polarised shot looks better, but personally I think the bigger difference is the light hitting both sides of the lake in that shot, unlike the first one where it's only on the one side where I immediately found my eye drawn to that lighter area rather than the lake. I suspect having both sides in sunlight would draw the eye to the lake regardless of whether you were using a polariser (though I'm sure it makes it pop even more with it).
While I prefer the unpolarized image, I agree with your comments. The lake being surrounded by illuminated land makes it the subject. Otherwise your eye gets drawn to the single light area of the image.
Ahhh I love the b/w trick! I've used the same for years in designing logos... Same principle applies. Can't believe I didn't think of that for photography. Thanks!
Green works well because the human eye can distinguish more shades of green than any other color, so it works to create space because we are actually perceiving more variation and therefor more of a perception of depth
Thanks for this. I love the look you are able to give your images, & have never really played around with the colour sliders myself. Time to give that a try...
The B&W tip is interesting as is the colour adjustments, At first glance what threw me off of the first image was the little blob of blue sky in the middle of the clouds above the lake. That grabbed my eye and wouldn’t let it go.
I went to Snowdonia in the summer of 2019, the photos you've taken bring back great memories because lots of the photos I took were very similar. I went up mount Snowdon early in the morning as the sun was rising so the lighting was stunning. That definitely played to my advantage
It's always good to find photographers who are happy to edit photos in a way that isn't what the eye sees. I've always thought of photography as art and I know a lot of people don't get on board with my shots/edits for that reason but I couldn't imagine showing off boring images!
I don't change the reality on my pictures, I just enhance the picture. No drastic changes. If is green I enhance the green, but never change the green to other color. The only drastic change is to Black&White sometimes just for streets or portraits.
Good video, you hit upon a couple of really good points. I always have to have a subject for my composition, a couple weeks back I shot a mountain range by the house I had done many times. Off in the distance we two kids running toward me yet quite a bit away. I really brought scale to everything and gave a life to the shot I have never seen before. Everyone smiles when they see this photo because it brings to their memory some time in their past!!! Just one of the many examples of how you can make your photos work. Moonpie
I personally like the variation of hue across the lake in the "boring" image more. That draws my eye. The image you chose has the benefit of a bit more contrast in the clouds too. But either way, I agree on the "Importance of Subject".
I love greens - James :D But to be constructive with my comment, I personally don't like changing reality in my photos too much, but it's a matter of style, no reason someone else shouldn't do it.
This was a really interesting video to watch! I am one of those people who don’t really play much with colours (and certainly not with a deeper goal), aside from small tonal tweaks. It was rather eye-opening to see how much you can do with those adjustments! :)
Hey man, another good thought-provoking video, thanks. Really like the first one of the robin on the mossy branch, shallow DOF. Not a typical bird shot, dig it.
Such a good point, if it doesn't work for you in B/W it's more than likely not that good shot in it's colour form, photography is art, manipulation when you only had B/W was done with your light source and that's why all those classic photos worked, artistry. The black of the lake was spot on, as it just about blended into the background drawing you into the image. Cheers.
When I started getting into photography I almost snobbishly didn’t like the idea of photoshop editing, making changes to colours and such. However as I progressed and learnt new techniques like manipulating depth of field, using colour filters and adjusting white balance my opinion completely changed. I realised that for me, using in camera techniques and post editing to create an image that was in my mind rather than what my eyes saw was much more fun and artistic. Each to their own, but I for one love your videos and this one really offers valuable information regarding the effects different colours, and shades of colours can have. Thanks!
Excellent tip about changing a photo to B&W to see if it's worth editing. I've been doing garden closeups for a year and am now just beginning to head out to do a few landscapes, this tip will definitely help. Also appreciate your take on editing. Some of the SOOC people can be very judgemental. -Elaine
Re Lake photo... I do like the polarized shot better, it has more light around the part of the lake that is closest to the camera. Further out, at the 'top' of the lake (image) it blends in, in B&W. That to me, brings my attention through. Certainly, the POW! is the foreground. I really like the idea of the B&W theory also. I usually only give that treatment to my photos that have a lot of texture. Like, a LOT of texture. To me, texture is what can make or break a B&W photo. Well, texture, and light. The more texture/contrast, the better they seem to look in B&W. Granted, that is just my old eyes, and purely subjective. Either way, I really dig your work, if it isn't obvious by now, lol. Thanks again, for another awesome video.
Yup. The polarised image for me. Also makes the clouds pop more, especially the ones on the horizon. Though they’re probably more of a distraction, tbf. Grand vid again, though, and nice to see more of the edit. Thanks.
Love your videos James! Don't necessarily agree with the point that every good photo has to be good in colour and B&W though, I think there are plenty of great photos out there that are great because of their purposeful use of colour to create mood, contrast, and the story of the photo, which would end up being average or uninteresting without that colour. Otherwise great video! Keep it up mate! 👍🏻
Brother, You are doing some apt content with solid title and thumbnail which questions the viewers themselves. You nailed it, keep grinding. Love - India.
Another great video straight to the point. I really like how you approach the greens. Personally I really have a hard time with that color. I live in Switzerland and the shades of green in the spring are just unbelievable. Right now the landscape looks stunning especially with the mountains in the background still covered with snow. However I never really like the hue of greens that I get on an image. It often looks too green too saturated almost fake. I can never be as bold as you and move the hue all the way to yellow but I will experiment. Thanks for the tips!
Very interesting that James, and very timely - I've just finished the Badger Divide bikepacking route and have nigh on 100 shots to edit, many of which are shots of singletrack winding through thick Scottish forest! As an aside, I'd highly recommend the Badger if you're after a bit of an adventure chock full of photo opportunities...
Interesting to hear your thoughts on greens. I used to find them awful to edit on my old camera so I have tended to shy away from them but I can see what you mean about the mood green can convey. Summat to think about, cheers!
I like your tip of converting to B&W to see if you still find the shot appealing. I've always thought that bright poppy colors can fool a person into thinking it a good shot when it's mediocre. One more thing about color vrs B&W, I enjoy doing live music photography and depending on the type and intensity of the lighting at a venue, red LED lighting tends to make everything look horribly overexposed and pink. But in many cases if you have a great action shot, maybe the guitar player giving some good stank face or the drummer gritting his teeth as he nails the snare, convert it to B&W and embrace the contrast and you'll have an awesome impactful shot.
Some great points there about creative editing, James. Completely agree. Wish we didn’t have to make this perfectly reasonable assertion quite so often when challenged! 🙂👍
Yes I’m one of those who prefer the unpolarised shot! 😝😄😄 I prefer the fact the lake stands out more and my eye can follow the lake all the way up to the top and can make it all out 😀
A Lightroom based tutorial on 1910 era book "composition" by Arthur Wesley Dow. He used black and while representative designs showing harmonious composition based on arrangement of tones.
Been there done that before. Took a day out and went up Cadair Idris only to find my footage was crap. You've got some great content James. Thanks for sharing 😊
I like the way you think James. Especially the point you made about editing before you take the shot. Also thanks for not waffling on about your sandwiches.
I find that setting up my camera to shoot a B&W jpeg -- and thus displaying it that way on the screen and EVF -- helps me with finding better compositions. (I shoot RAW + jpeg, so can still process the result as color.)
I agree the polarised shot is better (so your bet is safe). Initially, I was thinking it didn't need a polariser as it was the light all round the lake making it stand out better as a subject. Then I realised that the light may have been all over the lake but cut out by the polariser! I don't own a polariser so have an excuse for the confusion!
Photography is Art. Agreed. In my photography I try to capture the emotion of the scene. So I do change colors and manipulate the look. When I started I thought it was a sin to change the photos at all, but I felt uninspired. Letting go of purist opinions set me free to create and I'm a much better photographer for it. 🥂
Leaving a shoot with shutters of shite (as one might say), is what I do best; especially, having a run of long exposures, which are not readily observable in the camera screen...Sometimes, my worst mistake becomes a novelty because I shot something unaware, while walking or kicking the tripod. Yes, the artistic presentation of a mistake: serendipity! James, thanks for sharing! As to BnW, my objective is to frame specifically for that monochrome. It is an objective before I shoot the subject...I find for my tastes, that the most dilapidated structures and/or trees, are the best candidates to present monochromatic
If you don't have a polariser, could you darken the lake in post in the unpolarized photo to make it the subject? (and maybe add darken shadows slightly throughout)
I would have said I was against editing that much but seeing the results I like it . time to get Lightroom me thinks instead of trying to get it perfect in camera
The thing I find most refreshing about your work James is you dont get hung up on on the usual gear fixation most other youtubers do to game the algorithm. "I'm a Panasonic ambassador...................anyways......." I love that you identify your work as shit, then you give us some genuine help on how to identify flaws in our own images and finish it off with a dont be a pretentious flog, just go and create some art.
At last !……..a pro photographer with enough humility to admit that some of his photos are “shit”. I, for one, now feel much better about my own photography 😄
Bit late to the party on this one - I do like the second photo more the polariser does more than darken the lake - for me, the reflections are distracting so 👍. As for the editing vs natural - so long as you don’t try and pass a heavy edit off as natural - what’s the harm? For me, photography is in 4 parts - prep, execution, edit, display. They all form part of the final image and are all equally as important. Looking forward to the news letter. Cheers.
Totally agree with the edits. Perhaps if the foreground is cropped out a bit, the unpolarised one works better because one's eyes follow the lake from the bottom into the image to the top, where the lake ends? Just a thought, but I love the other one 😃
I used to be in the camp that disliked changes from reality until I started playing around with it myself. Sometimes, reality doesn't make you feel what you were hoping to feel in an image.
Quite a few people who decry editing digital photos will admire an earlier simplistic age of photography without realising that these earlier examples are heavily edited as well. It was just done in a photography dark room as opposed to a computer.
@@mikejankowski6321 You see a lot of people citing the work of Adams for why editing photography is bad, they do not know the amount of work Adams put into the darkroom to get the image exactly as he wanted.
Prefer the light on the land in the polarised shot, but overall i prefer the non polarised as the light towards the far end of the lake takes your eye through the frame naturally. There's no front to back flow in the polarised shot. A bit of blending with the best of both here would look good.
When I edit a photo, I start with the dehaze, sometimes setting it to massive levels, to create dramatic skys, then clarity also often to high levels, then knock the shadows up, change black levels so they are just showing saturation and same with white, last I knock the vibrance up to maybe 20 and saturation +5. Maybe I am doing this all wrong! I tend to just go with the feel, but maybe I am damaging the natural look somewhat and decreasing resolution?
I prefer the polarized shot, but not because of the polarizer...the light on the lake is completely different, and frames it up nicely, drawing the eye. The only light in the first shot is up to the right, so it's not as obvious that the lake is the subject.
Hi James. Yet another great video. I do have to disagree though to your point about every photos should be equally good in B&W. Sometimes a picture can be to messy in colors but work excellent in B&W. Other times the whole point of an image is to capture the colors (not necessarily a landscape). This photo wouldn't always work in B&W. But I do understand what you mean though, and agree to a certain point 😊
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 for the art lesson. I chuckle when I see friends posting sunset photos on Facebook with the hashtag #NoFilters as if using a filter would make them less then authentic. Especially when I know they are posting jpgs from an iPhone ... but I never say anything mean like "Oh you only use Apple's filters and processing in your photos!" because I have more important things to fight about on Facebook! 😁 I studied art at University and to me a camera and LightRoom are just as much artist's tools as paint brushes and paint. I love how you can shift the temperature and mood of a photo in post processing to be the work of art you want to create. Oh and what kind of sandwiches did you have? 😁
Another thing to do with B&W: remove all the colours and start doing your lightroom editing with shadows, highlights and exposure detail with radial/gradient filters in the B&W version then go back to colour for the final tweaks. I've been giving it a shot for a couple months now but no conclusive results. I agree that a good shot should probably work in both colour and black & white though.
Interesting concept of judging if the image works both in black and white and colour, and then deciding if it is a good photo or not. Do you do the conversion before or after you play with the sliders in Lightroom? I ask because editing will play a huge part wether different areas in a photos is dark or not. My raw-images tend to come out very, very flat.
On this one I have to disagree, some images look terrible in colour and amazing in black and white, I guess it's all relative to what your shooting, conditions etc
Absolutely. Some photos rely totally on colour for their impact - think complimentary colours - orange trees against a blue sky, which just wouldn't work in B&W where the tones could be very similar. I also disagree that you can't edit a bad photo into a good one - a less successful photo can often be made into something beautiful through the use of cropping and other editing tools
I agree. The hypothesis that a good photo should work in colour and BW doesn't compute for me. You can have different colours of same luminance that makes the colour image, but lost in translation to BW. Or BW photo that would be a mess with lots of colours.
Really good! The only time I worry about them falling off is when they're on my capture clip - but it has never happened. It's a much quicker system and means when I sell lenses they'll have perfect filter threads having only been used once :)
I would argue that with the first lake image, the reason the second image is better is not wholly down to the polariser but the break of light that is now circling the lake, thus providing a high contrast between the dark lake and the sunlit land surrounding it. The first image has much flatter light with only some sunlit land to the right of it but not actually enough to wrap around the lake. The light in the CPL is the single biggest reason the image works, not the CPL. If you took the same shot without the CPL it would still be a good shot. Now granted the CPL did help with bringing about that HC between the lake and land, but I see it as a more supportive role than primary. The light (and exposure choice perhaps) makes the shot work, its much better in the second image vs the first.
If you take a look at the unedited files again, both conditions are fairly similar, it was just much easier to edit a high contrast shot with the polarised version, but I get your point :)
@@JamesPopsysPhoto The image at 3:00 has only one bright part on the land, to the upper right of the lake, it's asymmetrical and unbalanced in its location and presentation as well. The image at 3:06 now has that light extended further extended and wrapping around the lake. For me this is why the image has so much more impact and open to lots of interpretations. If you imagine the 3:00 image with a CPL, it will still fall over because the light is just not there and doing what it is in the 3:06 shot. 3:06 has a lot of potential to be steered in lots of ways because the light is great, there is a natural vignette here as well here due the where the light doesn't reach (foreground and shaded upper mountains). So for me the CPL is still a supporting element rather than the primary driver of the success of the shot. God gave you a break and you took it haha (which is still to be commended). And I can see you drove these elements well in post, I can understand at the time it doesn't always look like a huge (light) contrast is happening before your eyes, and that we credit something powerful like a CPL, but it doesn't take much in post to separate degrees of light, we can amplify an awful lot and distance those tones that started off subtle into something quite opposing.
While my editing aesthetic is less aggressive my take on how much one can modify a scene has more to do with how you represent the scene. If you are claiming your is more documentary or journalistic then very limited editing is allowed. If your work is more artistic then more editing is allowed. Interesting tip on using B&W to see if the photo is a good one.
I have to disagree on your observation, that dark green produces a warm feeling (at least for me). For me dark green transports more a wet, colder feeling. Not cold as in artic cold but rather wet cold conditions. A person who grew up in the rain forest, on the other hand, would probably associate other impressions with that. Btw, another interesting video. Thanks for that.
I'm so glad you mentioned a good photo should stand on its own when stripped of colour. I've always thought that, especially having done just black and white in the past. Some of the sunsets and sunrise shots here in Australia are just a mash of over-saturated colour. Take away the colour and you have a very mediocre shot. Excellent advice.
Didn’t you just prove the opposite, that color CAN BE the subject that makes an image worthy? If an image is pleasing to look at, and we ARE talking about the final artistic impact, then judging it by considering what would happen if it were changed is negatively prejudicial.
@@mikejankowski6321 Hey Mike. Hope you're doing well. I agree that colour can make a photo pleasing to the eye, no doubt. My opinion, and this is all about sharing and listening to opinions, colour has the potential to distract you from the absolute basics of photography. Composition is the absolute foundation of a good photo. A photo with amazing colours and average composition can be pleasing, but it would be a much better photo if it was composed well. I'm no expert, I'm just a learner.
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
*Opens lightroom* turn images BnW, stare at them for 10 min straight, cry enough to make my own lake😭
It seems to me it is the light surrounding the lake in the second photo (creating an obvious contrast between the lake and the landscape) which draws the eye in. Regardless of how compelling a subject may be, good light will always make it more so.
I agree. Also, while I understand that the dark lake makes it more of a subject, when the picture taken without the polarizer lens is on the right in the vid, it looks like some of the clouds are reflected in the lake which, to me, makes the whole image more about something and less of something.
My thought, as well. It's the light striking the bottom left side of the lake's shoreline (in the second photo) that gives the lake definition and makes it an interesting subject. Darkening the lake with a polarizer enhances this effect somewhat, but it really isn't necessary.
I was about to write the same, the opening in the clouds created a different light on the landscape which made the lake pop out more.
Thanks for choosing a theme that most people don't : why does this photo not work? Much more educational than showing good photos.
I agree the polarizer helps the photo of the lake, but i think the bigger reason the second lake photo is better is because the light around the lake creates contrast which draws the eyes. The first photo has light on the right which is distracting.
I’m one of those who thinks you over do the brown. I’m all for autumn colours - love them, but turning full leaf trees brown when it’s obvs spring or summer simply looks wrong, unless you want to convey a landscape scorched by radiation... imo anyway. Green is a wonderful colour. It’s the colour of life. Not sure why you seem to avoid embracing it. :)
James did seem to go from "dark greens convey emotion, loneliness...." to oranges...Seeing him work in the light greens of spring and new growth would have been fun.
I think it's generation thing. I did learn photography in times, where the moment you press the shutter button determined the outcome of the effort. In the dark room there were some possibilities to manipulate, but compared to what is possible (and done) today, that was minuscule. Nowadays, the shutter button moment is only a tool to collect data, which are used to create a picture at the computer. A photo is no longer a representation of reality, but the created picture of an imagined reality.
Well said!
I think one can rely on too much on computer editing to hopefully fix a bad photo. To me, the old film rule of 'excellence is in the can' still applies. Good/great photos can be enhanced by editing but you are starting out with quality. I think James' point is along this line; if quality is not there to begin with editing is pointless.
@@washingtonradio I understand and I agree, that this is part of James' message with this video. But it doesn't change the fact that an altered reality is presented with photos like that. You surely know the expression of a painting being photorealistic. That term didn't come by accident. It says, that this picture is done in a way, that it almost perfectly shows the painted situation as it is in reality, as photography was doing it till it became digital.
With the term _photography_ one included the fact of an unaltered representation of a real world situation. That was even accepted as hard evidence at court. That is not the case anymore. Just the contrary, most professional photographers do spend more time in altering the pictured reality at their computers than in taking the original picture at the location.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Actually, as James hinted at, it is more like a new art form. But this is not the photography of the 19th and 20th century anymore. It is something new, where a photo is just an ingredient to create art.
But still we selected a film up front to alter the image. Kodachrome, Kodak Gold and Fujifilm Velvia would not give the same results in the end. One might say that this is a form of editing as well.
@@fotografi4fun That's true, we had different films with different color representations. We even had black&white film, and nature isn't b&w. But that's a completely different ball park to what is either possible or done with today's computer editing. That's more like different sensors or different color science software of a camera influences the color output of that camera. I don't think that anyone would argue that selecting a particular camera because of its color representation is comparable to editing a RAW file.
You couldn't select a single color to be suppressed or enhanced, you couldn't straighten or curve a line as you wanted, or remove freckles or wrinkles after you've took the photo. There was not something similar to editing after you had taken the shot, only some minor manipulation options in the dark room. These were (and are) absolutely not comparable to what can be done and is done with editing at a computer. And I think you know that.
James, please put up that Vlog. We like your rambling, part of why I watch, anyway! It’s great to see you being excited about getting back out, gives inspiration to get out too.
I agree the polarised shot looks better, but personally I think the bigger difference is the light hitting both sides of the lake in that shot, unlike the first one where it's only on the one side where I immediately found my eye drawn to that lighter area rather than the lake. I suspect having both sides in sunlight would draw the eye to the lake regardless of whether you were using a polariser (though I'm sure it makes it pop even more with it).
While I prefer the unpolarized image, I agree with your comments. The lake being surrounded by illuminated land makes it the subject. Otherwise your eye gets drawn to the single light area of the image.
This past year has been sh*t for me. Your videos have been rare pools of joy, and I just hope you know how awesome you are!
Thanks so much mate - I hope the next year brings more smiles for you :)
@@JamesPopsysPhoto I hope so, and likewise!
Sandwiches are good, well some sandwiches. I like sandwiches.
You have been listening to James for too long mate 😂😂
@@mattorrz759 I think you are right. I even bought a mountain bike. 💪👍😁😂😭
@@hachewie Haha he is such an influencer 😂👌
Ahhh I love the b/w trick! I've used the same for years in designing logos... Same principle applies. Can't believe I didn't think of that for photography. Thanks!
Green works well because the human eye can distinguish more shades of green than any other color, so it works to create space because we are actually perceiving more variation and therefor more of a perception of depth
Thanks for another great video :) I've been obsessively watching your channel since taking up photography recently!
Looking forward to seeing your photos :-)
The darker lake does draw more attention, but the only thing I like more of the unpolarised one is the reflection of the clouds
Thanks for this. I love the look you are able to give your images, & have never really played around with the colour sliders myself. Time to give that a try...
The B&W tip is interesting as is the colour adjustments,
At first glance what threw me off of the first image was the little blob of blue sky in the middle of the clouds above the lake. That grabbed my eye and wouldn’t let it go.
Good point on the P shot, totally agree on that part of the darker lake. Very good point James. Thanks.
I went to Snowdonia in the summer of 2019, the photos you've taken bring back great memories because lots of the photos I took were very similar. I went up mount Snowdon early in the morning as the sun was rising so the lighting was stunning. That definitely played to my advantage
It's always good to find photographers who are happy to edit photos in a way that isn't what the eye sees. I've always thought of photography as art and I know a lot of people don't get on board with my shots/edits for that reason but I couldn't imagine showing off boring images!
I love the jacket (or whatever you want to call it) that you're wearing for the commentary over this video. It really suits you!
Really useful video, James. Nice work. I actually love your robin composition.
I don't change the reality on my pictures, I just enhance the picture. No drastic changes. If is green I enhance the green, but never change the green to other color. The only drastic change is to Black&White sometimes just for streets or portraits.
Good video, you hit upon a couple of really good points. I always have to have a subject for my composition, a couple weeks back I shot a mountain range by the house I had done many times. Off in the distance we two kids running toward me yet quite a bit away. I really brought scale to everything and gave a life to the shot I have never seen before. Everyone smiles when they see this photo because it brings to their memory some time in their past!!! Just one of the many examples of how you can make your photos work.
Moonpie
I personally like the variation of hue across the lake in the "boring" image more. That draws my eye. The image you chose has the benefit of a bit more contrast in the clouds too. But either way, I agree on the "Importance of Subject".
Thank you, James!
Thank you, another great video! Really like the shot with the Robin!
Great video, cheers James
I love greens - James
:D
But to be constructive with my comment, I personally don't like changing reality in my photos too much, but it's a matter of style, no reason someone else shouldn't do it.
This was a really interesting video to watch! I am one of those people who don’t really play much with colours (and certainly not with a deeper goal), aside from small tonal tweaks. It was rather eye-opening to see how much you can do with those adjustments! :)
Hey man, another good thought-provoking video, thanks. Really like the first one of the robin on the mossy branch, shallow DOF. Not a typical bird shot, dig it.
Very valid point about pre shooting creative choices. Will keep that one for facebook debate for the SOOC people!
Such a good point, if it doesn't work for you in B/W it's more than likely not that good shot in it's colour form, photography is art, manipulation when you only had B/W was done with your light source and that's why all those classic photos worked, artistry. The black of the lake was spot on, as it just about blended into the background drawing you into the image. Cheers.
When I started getting into photography I almost snobbishly didn’t like the idea of photoshop editing, making changes to colours and such. However as I progressed and learnt new techniques like manipulating depth of field, using colour filters and adjusting white balance my opinion completely changed. I realised that for me, using in camera techniques and post editing to create an image that was in my mind rather than what my eyes saw was much more fun and artistic. Each to their own, but I for one love your videos and this one really offers valuable information regarding the effects different colours, and shades of colours can have. Thanks!
Thanks Ben! :)
My second vid from you, you got yourself a new subscriber!! Very real life information, thank you!
Thank you too! :)
Excellent tip about changing a photo to B&W to see if it's worth editing. I've been doing garden closeups for a year and am now just beginning to head out to do a few landscapes, this tip will definitely help. Also appreciate your take on editing. Some of the SOOC people can be very judgemental. -Elaine
Re Lake photo... I do like the polarized shot better, it has more light around the part of the lake that is closest to the camera. Further out, at the 'top' of the lake (image) it blends in, in B&W. That to me, brings my attention through. Certainly, the POW! is the foreground.
I really like the idea of the B&W theory also. I usually only give that treatment to my photos that have a lot of texture. Like, a LOT of texture. To me, texture is what can make or break a B&W photo. Well, texture, and light. The more texture/contrast, the better they seem to look in B&W. Granted, that is just my old eyes, and purely subjective. Either way, I really dig your work, if it isn't obvious by now, lol. Thanks again, for another awesome video.
Yup. The polarised image for me. Also makes the clouds pop more, especially the ones on the horizon. Though they’re probably more of a distraction, tbf.
Grand vid again, though, and nice to see more of the edit. Thanks.
I love robin on that log the most
Great video, i love the color editing. I find it hard to be as brave with colors. Really love the Robin shot on the branch.
Thanks so much :)
Love your videos James!
Don't necessarily agree with the point that every good photo has to be good in colour and B&W though, I think there are plenty of great photos out there that are great because of their purposeful use of colour to create mood, contrast, and the story of the photo, which would end up being average or uninteresting without that colour.
Otherwise great video! Keep it up mate! 👍🏻
Loved this video!
Brother, You are doing some apt content with solid title and thumbnail which questions the viewers themselves. You nailed it, keep grinding. Love - India.
Thanks mate :)
Another great video straight to the point. I really like how you approach the greens. Personally I really have a hard time with that color. I live in Switzerland and the shades of green in the spring are just unbelievable. Right now the landscape looks stunning especially with the mountains in the background still covered with snow. However I never really like the hue of greens that I get on an image. It often looks too green too saturated almost fake. I can never be as bold as you and move the hue all the way to yellow but I will experiment. Thanks for the tips!
Thanks mate :)
Very interesting that James, and very timely - I've just finished the Badger Divide bikepacking route and have nigh on 100 shots to edit, many of which are shots of singletrack winding through thick Scottish forest! As an aside, I'd highly recommend the Badger if you're after a bit of an adventure chock full of photo opportunities...
Interesting to hear your thoughts on greens. I used to find them awful to edit on my old camera so I have tended to shy away from them but I can see what you mean about the mood green can convey. Summat to think about, cheers!
love it!
Never tire of the Ogwen. The Glyders, Tryfan, then a belly full of food in Betws-Y-Coed. As ever, cheers for this one, stunning 👍 Martin & Jo
We think alike 😄
I like your tip of converting to B&W to see if you still find the shot appealing. I've always thought that bright poppy colors can fool a person into thinking it a good shot when it's mediocre.
One more thing about color vrs B&W, I enjoy doing live music photography and depending on the type and intensity of the lighting at a venue, red LED lighting tends to make everything look horribly overexposed and pink. But in many cases if you have a great action shot, maybe the guitar player giving some good stank face or the drummer gritting his teeth as he nails the snare, convert it to B&W and embrace the contrast and you'll have an awesome impactful shot.
Some great points there about creative editing, James. Completely agree. Wish we didn’t have to make this perfectly reasonable assertion quite so often when challenged! 🙂👍
Yes I’m one of those who prefer the unpolarised shot! 😝😄😄 I prefer the fact the lake stands out more and my eye can follow the lake all the way up to the top and can make it all out 😀
A Lightroom based tutorial on 1910 era book "composition" by Arthur Wesley Dow. He used black and while representative designs showing harmonious composition based on arrangement of tones.
Been there done that before. Took a day out and went up Cadair Idris only to find my footage was crap. You've got some great content James. Thanks for sharing 😊
I like the way you think James. Especially the point you made about editing before you take the shot. Also thanks for not waffling on about your sandwiches.
I find that setting up my camera to shoot a B&W jpeg -- and thus displaying it that way on the screen and EVF -- helps me with finding better compositions. (I shoot RAW + jpeg, so can still process the result as color.)
I need to go to bed, I usually only see your uploads late Saturday afternoon. Anyway, you do photography well...I need sleep
I agree the polarised shot is better (so your bet is safe). Initially, I was thinking it didn't need a polariser as it was the light all round the lake making it stand out better as a subject. Then I realised that the light may have been all over the lake but cut out by the polariser! I don't own a polariser so have an excuse for the confusion!
Photography is Art. Agreed. In my photography I try to capture the emotion of the scene. So I do change colors and manipulate the look. When I started I thought it was a sin to change the photos at all, but I felt uninspired. Letting go of purist opinions set me free to create and I'm a much better photographer for it.
🥂
Leaving a shoot with shutters of shite (as one might say), is what I do best; especially, having a run of long exposures, which are not readily observable in the camera screen...Sometimes, my worst mistake becomes a novelty because I shot something unaware, while walking or kicking the tripod. Yes, the artistic presentation of a mistake: serendipity! James, thanks for sharing! As to BnW, my objective is to frame specifically for that monochrome. It is an objective before I shoot the subject...I find for my tastes, that the most dilapidated structures and/or trees, are the best candidates to present monochromatic
If you don't have a polariser, could you darken the lake in post in the unpolarized photo to make it the subject? (and maybe add darken shadows slightly throughout)
I would love to join you on one of your adventures, we explore some of the same places but always at different time 😩
I would have said I was against editing that much but seeing the results I like it . time to get Lightroom me thinks instead of trying to get it perfect in camera
The thing I find most refreshing about your work James is you dont get hung up on on the usual gear fixation most other youtubers do to game the algorithm.
"I'm a Panasonic ambassador...................anyways......."
I love that you identify your work as shit, then you give us some genuine help on how to identify flaws in our own images and finish it off with a dont be a pretentious flog, just go and create some art.
Thanks mate - much appreciated :)
Have you done a video about your drone footage? I'm very impressed with it and wonder about your settings, etc. Thanks!
I have, last summer I believe :) th-cam.com/video/Thkbr3xAkCQ/w-d-xo.html
At last !……..a pro photographer with enough humility to admit that some of his photos are “shit”. I, for one, now feel much better about my own photography 😄
James love your content!
Which VND filter do you use for filming?
Bit late to the party on this one - I do like the second photo more the polariser does more than darken the lake - for me, the reflections are distracting so 👍. As for the editing vs natural - so long as you don’t try and pass a heavy edit off as natural - what’s the harm? For me, photography is in 4 parts - prep, execution, edit, display. They all form part of the final image and are all equally as important. Looking forward to the news letter. Cheers.
The main thing for me in that first photo I think really helps is the rock being more separated from the valley.
Totally agree with the edits. Perhaps if the foreground is cropped out a bit, the unpolarised one works better because one's eyes follow the lake from the bottom into the image to the top, where the lake ends? Just a thought, but I love the other one 😃
James do you use the calibration tab in PS/LR? I've been messing with it recently, the robin shot would be a fun one to try!
I used to be in the camp that disliked changes from reality until I started playing around with it myself. Sometimes, reality doesn't make you feel what you were hoping to feel in an image.
Nice one!
Always interesting to hear what others like to cramp between their slices of bread :-)
Quite a few people who decry editing digital photos will admire an earlier simplistic age of photography without realising that these earlier examples are heavily edited as well. It was just done in a photography dark room as opposed to a computer.
Just scratch the surface of Ansel Adams’ work.
@@mikejankowski6321 You see a lot of people citing the work of Adams for why editing photography is bad, they do not know the amount of work Adams put into the darkroom to get the image exactly as he wanted.
turning all trees orange might be a polarizing subject lol, nothing like an orange autumn evergreen
Yes James. I often feel the same when I review my photos ....... 'mediocre at best ...... and some are completely s..t'! 🤣
Prefer the light on the land in the polarised shot, but overall i prefer the non polarised as the light towards the far end of the lake takes your eye through the frame naturally. There's no front to back flow in the polarised shot. A bit of blending with the best of both here would look good.
When I edit a photo, I start with the dehaze, sometimes setting it to massive levels, to create dramatic skys, then clarity also often to high levels, then knock the shadows up, change black levels so they are just showing saturation and same with white, last I knock the vibrance up to maybe 20 and saturation +5.
Maybe I am doing this all wrong! I tend to just go with the feel, but maybe I am damaging the natural look somewhat and decreasing resolution?
That lake looks like the shape of Finland :)
Great, now I need to know about that sandwich, what was in it? how was it? how many? So many questions.
I prefer the polarized shot, but not because of the polarizer...the light on the lake is completely different, and frames it up nicely, drawing the eye. The only light in the first shot is up to the right, so it's not as obvious that the lake is the subject.
Hi James. Yet another great video. I do have to disagree though to your point about every photos should be equally good in B&W. Sometimes a picture can be to messy in colors but work excellent in B&W. Other times the whole point of an image is to capture the colors (not necessarily a landscape). This photo wouldn't always work in B&W. But I do understand what you mean though, and agree to a certain point 😊
Thanks mate, I hear you :)
My issue with green is it gets muddy and dirty really quickly. Any ideas why? Maybe because it the lack of light or not correctly exposed?
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 for the art lesson. I chuckle when I see friends posting sunset photos on Facebook with the hashtag #NoFilters as if using a filter would make them less then authentic. Especially when I know they are posting jpgs from an iPhone ... but I never say anything mean like "Oh you only use Apple's filters and processing in your photos!" because I have more important things to fight about on Facebook! 😁 I studied art at University and to me a camera and LightRoom are just as much artist's tools as paint brushes and paint.
I love how you can shift the temperature and mood of a photo in post processing to be the work of art you want to create.
Oh and what kind of sandwiches did you have? 😁
Another thing to do with B&W: remove all the colours and start doing your lightroom editing with shadows, highlights and exposure detail with radial/gradient filters in the B&W version then go back to colour for the final tweaks. I've been giving it a shot for a couple months now but no conclusive results. I agree that a good shot should probably work in both colour and black & white though.
hi james, just a question is there much willdife in the mountains where you are ??
Interesting concept of judging if the image works both in black and white and colour, and then deciding if it is a good photo or not. Do you do the conversion before or after you play with the sliders in Lightroom? I ask because editing will play a huge part wether different areas in a photos is dark or not. My raw-images tend to come out very, very flat.
On this one I have to disagree, some images look terrible in colour and amazing in black and white, I guess it's all relative to what your shooting, conditions etc
I totally agree. And the reverse is also sometimes true if textures in B&W images look a bit busy where the colours would help to separate subjects
Absolutely. Some photos rely totally on colour for their impact - think complimentary colours - orange trees against a blue sky, which just wouldn't work in B&W where the tones could be very similar. I also disagree that you can't edit a bad photo into a good one - a less successful photo can often be made into something beautiful through the use of cropping and other editing tools
I agree. The hypothesis that a good photo should work in colour and BW doesn't compute for me. You can have different colours of same luminance that makes the colour image, but lost in translation to BW. Or BW photo that would be a mess with lots of colours.
I think I'm going to try turning my greens blue.
i like the jacket look. is this what you wear at the desk now?
going for that "professor look"
haha! More of a woodsman I thought :)
How do you like the magnetic polarisers in comparison to the screw ons? I always worry about them falling off the front
Really good! The only time I worry about them falling off is when they're on my capture clip - but it has never happened. It's a much quicker system and means when I sell lenses they'll have perfect filter threads having only been used once :)
I would argue that with the first lake image, the reason the second image is better is not wholly down to the polariser but the break of light that is now circling the lake, thus providing a high contrast between the dark lake and the sunlit land surrounding it. The first image has much flatter light with only some sunlit land to the right of it but not actually enough to wrap around the lake. The light in the CPL is the single biggest reason the image works, not the CPL. If you took the same shot without the CPL it would still be a good shot. Now granted the CPL did help with bringing about that HC between the lake and land, but I see it as a more supportive role than primary. The light (and exposure choice perhaps) makes the shot work, its much better in the second image vs the first.
If you take a look at the unedited files again, both conditions are fairly similar, it was just much easier to edit a high contrast shot with the polarised version, but I get your point :)
@@JamesPopsysPhoto The image at 3:00 has only one bright part on the land, to the upper right of the lake, it's asymmetrical and unbalanced in its location and presentation as well. The image at 3:06 now has that light extended further extended and wrapping around the lake. For me this is why the image has so much more impact and open to lots of interpretations. If you imagine the 3:00 image with a CPL, it will still fall over because the light is just not there and doing what it is in the 3:06 shot. 3:06 has a lot of potential to be steered in lots of ways because the light is great, there is a natural vignette here as well here due the where the light doesn't reach (foreground and shaded upper mountains). So for me the CPL is still a supporting element rather than the primary driver of the success of the shot. God gave you a break and you took it haha (which is still to be commended). And I can see you drove these elements well in post, I can understand at the time it doesn't always look like a huge (light) contrast is happening before your eyes, and that we credit something powerful like a CPL, but it doesn't take much in post to separate degrees of light, we can amplify an awful lot and distance those tones that started off subtle into something quite opposing.
While my editing aesthetic is less aggressive my take on how much one can modify a scene has more to do with how you represent the scene. If you are claiming your is more documentary or journalistic then very limited editing is allowed. If your work is more artistic then more editing is allowed.
Interesting tip on using B&W to see if the photo is a good one.
Came down to Wales to have a coffee with u and never got the invite! Videos good though!
How about infrared black and white ??
I'd watch your sandwich video. Bring it on. Sure love the scenery behind you and would love to see the video, sandwiches and all. :)
I have to disagree on your observation, that dark green produces a warm feeling (at least for me). For me dark green transports more a wet, colder feeling. Not cold as in artic cold but rather wet cold conditions. A person who grew up in the rain forest, on the other hand, would probably associate other impressions with that. Btw, another interesting video. Thanks for that.
I'm so glad you mentioned a good photo should stand on its own when stripped of colour. I've always thought that, especially having done just black and white in the past. Some of the sunsets and sunrise shots here in Australia are just a mash of over-saturated colour. Take away the colour and you have a very mediocre shot. Excellent advice.
Didn’t you just prove the opposite, that color CAN BE the subject that makes an image worthy? If an image is pleasing to look at, and we ARE talking about the final artistic impact, then judging it by considering what would happen if it were changed is negatively prejudicial.
@@mikejankowski6321 Hey Mike. Hope you're doing well.
I agree that colour can make a photo pleasing to the eye, no doubt. My opinion, and this is all about sharing and listening to opinions, colour has the potential to distract you from the absolute basics of photography. Composition is the absolute foundation of a good photo. A photo with amazing colours and average composition can be pleasing, but it would be a much better photo if it was composed well.
I'm no expert, I'm just a learner.
I like greens especially in the sandwiches
Greens? I shot the Palouse this week. Much and many greens.
Honestly, I like both photos of the lake (polarized and non-polarized). Just my opinion.