Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Magazines STILL showing landscapes with garish PURPLE skies
17 views
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Sep 7, 2017, 7:27:45 PM9/7/17
to
Why? What the Hell is wrong with BLUE? I see it all the time, I can't figure out why they do it? Some kind of consumer peculiarity that makes them want to buy a magazine showing purple skies??
http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.jpg
http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.jpg
Savageduck
Sep 7, 2017, 7:43:04 PM9/7/17
to
On Sep 7, 2017, RichA wrote
(in article<7b6c08c6-b852-4855...@googlegroups.com>):
I don’t know about “purple skies”, but depending on time of day, and
weather conditions, very often the sky is not going to be BLUE. Once the Sun
is low in the sky, or in the vicinity of, or below the horizon the shift from
BLUE can be quite dramatic. I am also not sure how responsible magazine
marketing is for a hue in the sky you are not pleased with.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<7b6c08c6-b852-4855...@googlegroups.com>):
weather conditions, very often the sky is not going to be BLUE. Once the Sun
is low in the sky, or in the vicinity of, or below the horizon the shift from
BLUE can be quite dramatic. I am also not sure how responsible magazine
marketing is for a hue in the sky you are not pleased with.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Tony Cooper
Sep 7, 2017, 8:42:49 PM9/7/17
to
brilliantly sunny and pleasant here in Orlando. The sky was a
wonderful blue and the clouds were puffy and white. I had too many
errands to do, and wasn't able to take any time for photography.
Usually, the sky here is a pale, washed-out blue. Barely blue.
Whitish. If I want good sky in a photograph, I have to resort to
Photoshop, but I go for a relatively bland - but blue - sky.
What does turn me off is the tendency of a lot of photographers to
"improve" the sky excessively. Very few photographs benefit from the
sky being the central point and the dramatic aspect. Some do, of
course, but the central feature is not always supposed to be the sky.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Eric Stevens
Sep 7, 2017, 9:50:39 PM9/7/17
to
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 16:27:37 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Why? What the Hell is wrong with BLUE? I see it all the time, I can't figure out why they do it? Some kind of consumer peculiarity that makes them want to buy a magazine showing purple skies??
>
>http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.jpg
The purple isn't sky: its clouds.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Why? What the Hell is wrong with BLUE? I see it all the time, I can't figure out why they do it? Some kind of consumer peculiarity that makes them want to buy a magazine showing purple skies??
>
>http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.jpg
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Savageduck
Sep 7, 2017, 9:53:32 PM9/7/17
to
On Sep 7, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in article<hdm3rcl58gs7167bh...@4ax.com>):
Agreed. However, time of day, atmospheric conditions, position of the Sun,
and direction the camera is aimed relative to the Sun is critical for how the
sky will appear. For the most part washed out skies don’t always work, and
can benefit from a CPF, or some sort of Grad treatment.
For these two unadjusted RAW side-by-side with a slightly adjusted rendition.
The only adjustment to the sky is the addition of an LR Grad with only a
-0.62 Exposure. They are not great shots, I didn’t use a CPF, or other
Grads when I shot them. They are just for illustrative purposes. The sky is a
wishy-washy blue, and remains blue even after the addition of the Grad.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhe1o3ci2j2xl6z/screenshot_167.png>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5c962ncsn1vzba/screenshot_166.png>
The comment I have with regard to the Magazine cover shot is that it is a
golden hour shot where the sky is not typically BLUE. I also suspect that the
photographer was using some sort of ND filter to balance the shot, and that
has effected the hue of the sky.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<hdm3rcl58gs7167bh...@4ax.com>):
and direction the camera is aimed relative to the Sun is critical for how the
sky will appear. For the most part washed out skies don’t always work, and
can benefit from a CPF, or some sort of Grad treatment.
For these two unadjusted RAW side-by-side with a slightly adjusted rendition.
The only adjustment to the sky is the addition of an LR Grad with only a
-0.62 Exposure. They are not great shots, I didn’t use a CPF, or other
Grads when I shot them. They are just for illustrative purposes. The sky is a
wishy-washy blue, and remains blue even after the addition of the Grad.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhe1o3ci2j2xl6z/screenshot_167.png>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5c962ncsn1vzba/screenshot_166.png>
The comment I have with regard to the Magazine cover shot is that it is a
golden hour shot where the sky is not typically BLUE. I also suspect that the
photographer was using some sort of ND filter to balance the shot, and that
has effected the hue of the sky.
>
> What does turn me off is the tendency of a lot of photographers to
> "improve" the sky excessively. Very few photographs benefit from the
> sky being the central point and the dramatic aspect. Some do, of
> course, but the central feature is not always supposed to be the sky.
Where is John Sisker when we need him?
> What does turn me off is the tendency of a lot of photographers to
> "improve" the sky excessively. Very few photographs benefit from the
> sky being the central point and the dramatic aspect. Some do, of
> course, but the central feature is not always supposed to be the sky.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
Sep 7, 2017, 9:55:16 PM9/7/17
to
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:42:39 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:42:51 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 7, 2017, RichA wrote
>>(in article<7b6c08c6-b852-4855...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Why? What the Hell is wrong with BLUE? I see it all the time, I can't figure
>>> out why they do it? Some kind of consumer peculiarity that makes them want to
>>> buy a magazine showing purple skies??
>>>
>>> http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.j
>>> pg
>>
>>I don’t know about “purple skies”, but depending on time of day, and
>>weather conditions, very often the sky is not going to be BLUE. Once the Sun
>>is low in the sky, or in the vicinity of, or below the horizon the shift from
>>BLUE can be quite dramatic. I am also not sure how responsible magazine
>>marketing is for a hue in the sky you are not pleased with.
>
>Even though Irma is lurking around down south, today it was
>brilliantly sunny and pleasant here in Orlando. The sky was a
>wonderful blue and the clouds were puffy and white. I had too many
>errands to do, and wasn't able to take any time for photography.
>
>Usually, the sky here is a pale, washed-out blue. Barely blue.
>Whitish. If I want good sky in a photograph, I have to resort to
>Photoshop, but I go for a relatively bland - but blue - sky.
THere must be blue skies somewhere for you to copy.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:42:51 -0700, Savageduck
><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 7, 2017, RichA wrote
>>(in article<7b6c08c6-b852-4855...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Why? What the Hell is wrong with BLUE? I see it all the time, I can't figure
>>> out why they do it? Some kind of consumer peculiarity that makes them want to
>>> buy a magazine showing purple skies??
>>>
>>> http://www.givemeneither.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Outdoor-Photographer.j
>>> pg
>>
>>I don’t know about “purple skies”, but depending on time of day, and
>>weather conditions, very often the sky is not going to be BLUE. Once the Sun
>>is low in the sky, or in the vicinity of, or below the horizon the shift from
>>BLUE can be quite dramatic. I am also not sure how responsible magazine
>>marketing is for a hue in the sky you are not pleased with.
>
>Even though Irma is lurking around down south, today it was
>brilliantly sunny and pleasant here in Orlando. The sky was a
>wonderful blue and the clouds were puffy and white. I had too many
>errands to do, and wasn't able to take any time for photography.
>
>Usually, the sky here is a pale, washed-out blue. Barely blue.
>Whitish. If I want good sky in a photograph, I have to resort to
>Photoshop, but I go for a relatively bland - but blue - sky.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/axyglzfrqcemhbw/LR---7.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/afxxm0hko7k6jhy/LR--1-2.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9kgh2on2jw591j/LR---2.jpg?dl=0
>
>What does turn me off is the tendency of a lot of photographers to
>"improve" the sky excessively. Very few photographs benefit from the
>sky being the central point and the dramatic aspect. Some do, of
>course, but the central feature is not always supposed to be the sky.
--
Regards,
>What does turn me off is the tendency of a lot of photographers to
>"improve" the sky excessively. Very few photographs benefit from the
>sky being the central point and the dramatic aspect. Some do, of
>course, but the central feature is not always supposed to be the sky.
--
Eric Stevens
Tony Cooper
Sep 7, 2017, 10:40:44 PM9/7/17
to
that one in your second link above. That sky color is never seen in
Florida. In a Florida shot it would scream "Fakery!"
I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
Eric Stevens
Sep 7, 2017, 11:44:11 PM9/7/17
to
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:40:41 -0400, Tony Cooper
Nevertheless it was real.
Eric Stevens
>
>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
Regards,
>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
Eric Stevens
Tony Cooper
Sep 8, 2017, 1:05:13 AM9/8/17
to
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:44:43 +1200, Eric Stevens
I made no accusation that it wasn't. My point was that I can't find
just any sky shots using Google images, download, and plug one into
one of my photographs. That sky would look wrong in a Florida shot
even though it's a real sky in someone's shot.
>>
>>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
just any sky shots using Google images, download, and plug one into
one of my photographs. That sky would look wrong in a Florida shot
even though it's a real sky in someone's shot.
>>
>>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
Eric Stevens
Sep 8, 2017, 4:31:22 AM9/8/17
to
On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 01:05:04 -0400, Tony Cooper
I got that point. However I will be first to admit that the sky is
peculiar. It was taken as the road climbs up to the middle of the
volcanic plateau at the center of New Zealand'd North Island. Altitude
is about 2000 ft. As shown in the photograph there were clouds
drifting off the snows of Mount Ruapehu (9177ft).
To the NE lies Lake Taupo (the caldera of a super volcano) at an
altitude of about 1000ft. Fog was drifting from the lake in clouds
over my head and the down-sun edge was just within my camera view.
This edge was shaded and is responsible for the almost black tint to
the sky at the top of the image.
It was before 9:00am (daylight saving) and the sun was still low. The
scene was such that I slammed to a halt at the edge of the road and
took a photograph.
Eric Stevens
peculiar. It was taken as the road climbs up to the middle of the
volcanic plateau at the center of New Zealand'd North Island. Altitude
is about 2000 ft. As shown in the photograph there were clouds
drifting off the snows of Mount Ruapehu (9177ft).
To the NE lies Lake Taupo (the caldera of a super volcano) at an
altitude of about 1000ft. Fog was drifting from the lake in clouds
over my head and the down-sun edge was just within my camera view.
This edge was shaded and is responsible for the almost black tint to
the sky at the top of the image.
It was before 9:00am (daylight saving) and the sun was still low. The
scene was such that I slammed to a halt at the edge of the road and
took a photograph.
>>>
>>>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
Regards,
>>>I've also got a file of backgrounds...brick walls, stucco, etc.
--
Eric Stevens
chrish...@gmail.com
Sep 8, 2017, 6:13:28 AM9/8/17
to
Eric Stevens
Sep 8, 2017, 7:29:44 PM9/8/17
to
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 03:13:21 -0700 (PDT), chrish...@gmail.com
wrote:
Let me know and I will drive down there to meet you. Right now they
are forecasting snow.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
are forecasting snow.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
RichA
Sep 8, 2017, 9:43:06 PM9/8/17
to
0 new messages