I mentioned in a previous post that I'm not a big fan of "over processing". Since this term is way too general, I wanted to explain what "over processing" means to me and also talk about a few exceptions and qualifiers.
Browsing the internet, I can see that the majority of photographers agree that an over processed picture is one that does not look really natural (the Photoshop look). Examples: over saturated colors that are not seen in nature, extreme sharpening, skin tone and softness that fits a porcelain figurine more than human being.I have to admit, the line between "just enough" and going over board is sometimes hard to find. For me personally, that's one of my weak points. For a long time I opted for very little or no processing because every time I tried to push it I fell into the over processing trap. I like to think I am getting better at it, but I'm nowhere near where I want to be.
Now, a major exception is if you are aiming for something closer to an illustration, or more accurately, a hybrid between a photo and an illustration. Some of these could be really interesting. Another case could be if you are going for a certain vintage look, like the Technicolor movies of the 40's and 50's. (I personally like those occasionally. Think "The Wizard of OZ").
In general, less-is-more applies here. But rules are meant to be broken (once you learn them and know what you're doing).
This picture reminds me of the passage of time. The erosion is the past, all the years that have gone by. She represents the present because in we've been here such a short amount of time in comparison to everything else. And the open sky is the future and no one knows where it ends.
ReplyDelete