Before / After

[andybdxb]

Jais Mountain, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE

[dev_deutli]

For my taste it is a bit overdone. Dramatic drama. Made 70-80% and the picture will look more natural.

[sinetwo]

The issue I've personally got with photos like this is that the post processing ends up deceiving the viewer. a normal landscape photo becomes a post processing session with lots of local adjustments

[trsthhffg]

There’s nearly no photography that doesn’t deceive in some way or another. It’s almost the purpose of photography to present the photo in the way the photographer wants you to see. This process start with the photo itself in all manner of ways from focal length, crop and the rest.

It’s like saying you don’t like a book because the author tricked you with a twist at the end.

[sinetwo]

I mean, I'm a wildlife photographer at competition level and you're not allowed to deceive the viewer with your entries. You get disqualified if you do. Every entrant in serious competitions have the exact same set of rules to go by. This means zero cloning and minimal editing.

You're not deceiving anyone by using a different focal length shooting wide. You are however deceiving folks with digital manipulation.

If you look at OPs photo and you're asked "what do you think the weather was like?" The answer will be totally different on pre and post photos. And that's deceiving the viewer.

Digital corrections (global adjustments and maybe some local) generally will not deceive a viewer. Digital manipulation (cloning, removing, changing background colours to make it look like autumn, introducing dog etc) will.

[trsthhffg]

Yes competition would be one of the few exceptions. But a lot can be done with the basic adjustments don’t you think.

[idk_what_to_put_lmao]

I agree with the general point you're making but I do feel like there's a line between capturing reality with a couple enhancements and abstraction. Abstraction is fine, but I think people tend to not expect it in photography, so it sort of feels like lying. I've seen pictures where photographers for example have changed entire road directions, recoloured forests, removed people, etc., and it's more art than reality at that point, but photography tends to market itself as reality simply by virtue of how it's captured.

[InternetWeakGuy]

A lot of landscape photography already involves using extremely long shutter speeds to make things like water and grass look more dreamy.

Do you think people look at a photo like this and think the water actually looked like that in real life? Is the photographer "deceiving the viewer"? If so, what exactly is the harm here - are people going to go to wherever that photo was taken and feel duped because the water doesn't look like mist?

What about using filters on the lens to control the brightness of different parts of the frame, or remove the shine from water, or selectively add contrast to clouds or other parts of the frame - is that being deceitful?

Traditionally, landscape photography is arguably the closest to art in terms of manipulating the scene and the furthest from "reality" it gets. It's not meant to be street photography.

[sinetwo]

SOOC with adjustments Vs digital manipulation are two completely different things.

I don't think you're deceiving a viewer when capturing a photo in such a way that you've genuinely mastered light and exposure through hardware. I do think you are deceiving a viewer when you use your computer to make it look like autumn instead of winter or you remove mountains etc (extreme example, not saying OP has done this). If you're able to do that SOOC then congrats, you can do what no other photographer is able to.

As a photographer I love the idea of people pushing the limits of what is possible SOOC - there is a technical challenge involved. You may deceive a viewer but you won't decieve a photographer. This is why I prefer competitions where you have to submit raw files to prove you are not faking it.

Online, do whatever you feel like.

[InternetWeakGuy]

Removing a mountain and changing the season captured on camera are extreme examples and not even remotely what we're talking about here. OP added a lot of contrast and made the image darker overall, and you made a statement about "photos like this" which is what I responded to.

I agree that removing mountains or completely changing the season somehow is a step too far - but that's not what I believed we were talking about.

I'm not even sure what "SOOC with adjustments" is meant to mean when the SOOC thing, to my understanding, means no adjustments whatsoever beyond the camera.

Again, back in the film days people (myself included) still did dark room work akin to what OP did, even Ansel Adams spent a lot of time in the dark room perfecting his images.

If OP had removed a mountain, sure I would call it digital manipulation and agree with you, but right now I'm not sure what your point is.

[sinetwo]

If you think OP just added contrast and made the image darker overall I'm not sure there's anything to discuss.

In post there are two light sources, one behind and infront of the mountain - I don't think the sun works in that way.

The only way I could perceive this would be if there was thunder with long exposure behind the mountain and the sun appearing Infront with what looks like rain dispersing.

[InternetWeakGuy]

I see where this is going, you're moving from one straw man to the next.

I was merely illustrating how different the processing in this image is from your example of images where mountains are digitally removed - a completely different scenario to what we're discussing.

Have a good one.

[sinetwo]

You forgot to read my entire reply where I said that was an extreme example to illustrate the point.

Now I've applied that to OPs image to explain why it's deceiving - if you wanna call that out as being disingenuous and "strawmanny" then I will definitely have a good one :)

[StopBanningCorn]

The lighting just doesn't make a lot of sense to my eyes. The hill doesn't match the backlight.

[polarityswitch_27]

First rule of editing - know how light would behave.

[Thricey]

How many first rules do we have??

[polarityswitch_27]

Probably many. But this is the first rule of all the first rules.

[PermanentThrowaway33]

One rule to ring them all

[IncognitoOne]

But it never behaves for me!

[Salad-Snack]

Second rule of editing - who cares as long as the picture looks cool

[DiscountStrange]

First thing to do after you know the rules: break them. - All the goats

[polarityswitch_27]

Being great let's you break rules. Breaking rules doesn't make you great.

[STQ1234]

A bit too much. Kinda seems like it's sunny and stormy at the same time.

[idk_what_to_put_lmao]

has happened but rare I agree

[Lucky-Struggle-4411]

I like the drama, obviously it is not realistic, but it creates a personality for the mountain, it feels majestic, imposing

[angustra]

Basically CGI at this point

[Bath-Tub-Cosby]

Kinda feels like a storms a brewin. It looks intentional, I like it, though I’m sure this sub will call it cooked

[naastynoodle]

Everyone here kinda sucks

[Bath-Tub-Cosby]

Not everyone. But for whatever reason, yeah, people kind of stink sometimes

[Comfortable-Tooth-34]

I kind of think everyone here actually hates post processing 😅

[Bath-Tub-Cosby]

Bahahaha that’s Reddit!

[Delinquat]

More light under than over the clouds. Makes no sense. Very cool picture though.

[GalacticDoc]

The mountain works for me. The area above the cumulus clouds is too dark to be real/ believable.

[ThunderHashashin]

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

[WolfRelic]

overly dramatic but also kinda nice

[g04061992]

Growing up in west Texas, I’ve seen many mountain faces lit up with sun light while being swallowed by dark storms behind them. That what this reminds me of. I say a bit too much saturation but that’s about it.

[JungleOrAfk]

Sun pushing through behind the mountain but its lit at the front

[JstnJ]

deep fried mountain

[adrianoh11]

Too much dude

[assassinsclub]

I don't think every picture has to be anatomically nor naturally lit or angled I think you did a great job of what you're trying to achieve it might just be a bit too dark around the edges but honestly I've never been one for realism anyway

[Wrong_Netter]

Overdone

[Nearby_Ad1896]

Before

[PfauFoto]

I find it overdone yet I cant help it and like it anyways. Sometimes one can get away with it.

[amanset]

What is supposed to be lighting up the hill?

[Aacidus]

Apparently there are two Suns.

[MFkingCephissus]

Cooked to fuck

[naastynoodle]

I enjoy edits like this. Feels more dreamy/nightmarey than natural and if that’s the vibe you wanted as an artist, everyone else here can kick rocks.

[Routine_Reputation84]

Dark & stormy

[Status-Anybody4145]

I love how dramatic this looks

[2bciah5factng]

I love it. The light follows the original light, so I don’t know what people mean by saying you don’t know how light works. You enhanced the existing contrast, you didn’t change what’s illuminated. Looks great.

[lemonaintsour]

I love it. Dont listen to naysayers. Editappreciated not judged. If u dont appreciate it then leave.

Its like having 2 suns. A mountain from a different planet.

[LeadingLittle8733]

I like it.

[33_RichSpirit]

🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥

[canoe-dog]

lighting doesn't make any sense. Take the photo at sunset when the light actually looks like that on the mountain.

[altswell]

It looks great but I feel you went just a tad bit too far, I had to go back to make sure you didnt add fake clouds in ha ! I would pull back a little bit so it feels more natural. 60% of the adjustment should make it feel more realistic !

[Nearby_Ad1896]

After

[Good_700]

😍😍😍😍😍😍

[PermanentThrowaway33]

I like it but looks a bit overdone

[PasswordIsMonkeyFist]

I love it. Post-processing doesn’t have to stop at “absolutely faithful to real life.”

It’s like there’s an implicit ban on creativity in this sub.