I didn't know if you had seen this photo on Luminous Landscape but I was wondering what people thought. Look carefully at the first photo and see what you think before you scroll down and look at what he started with.
As someone who prides themselves on getting up way to early and sitting on a hill side in lousy weather waiting for the clouds to move and goes home disappointed often because the weather will not do what I want it to. I like this photo and admire the composition immensely but once I saw the light in the original file I felt like I was cheated. It was well done enough to fool me (at least at first glance) and make me jealous how the light cooperated so well with the photographer. I certainly lack the ability to change a photo in such a realistic way but I also am certain that it is going to become easier and easier to get such effects- and more.
I then started getting depressed about the future when people will be able to add any kind of light or effect to any photo. (coming soon the "god beam" plug in). I just entered a contest called Chasing the Light and the rules state that the photos must be minimally processed. Would this photo qualify? How would they know?
Am I just getting old and trying to resist the glorious future? Where do you draw the line? Is this Okay?
I tend to agree with you on all points, however, I think what you have to tell yourself is this: Would I be happy to call this end result my own, knowing the technical work that went into it? Or would you, like me, prefer to take nature at it's best and not do so much manipulation? Personally, I would never have manipulated that original so much, it would have ended up in the heap. I think there should be some kind of disclosure about a photo that has been manipulated so much, but that's just me!
It will become easier and easier to make these manipulations, just as more and more folks are becoming "photographers" by virtue of having a digital camera. In the end, we must be true to ourselves and if that means getting skunked at the end of a long wait for sunrise or sunset, well then, at least we got out there and experienced life in the doing!
There are many forms of art. Photography is just one of them.
There are many forms of photography. Photo Journalism is just one of them.
Photo Journalism has strict rules about manipulation, promising the viewer that what a photo shows is a true and fair representation of what was seen by the human eye at that place and time.
No such rules apply to the other forms of photographic art. Unless, of course, the administrator of a photo contest chooses to impose some.
If you feel that every photo should be a true and fair representation of what was seen by the human eye, then you are a member of a small and shrinking minority. That's not a bad thing, just a reality.
Digital photography has re-written the rule book, and opened the art of photography to a new and vast majority of people who want to be free to create whatever their heart desires. Their heart's desire may or may not be attractive to others. But that mutual attraction is based on the artistic appeal of the image, not its adherence to reality.
Example, try to sell a book or attract people to a website on "How to do photography with minimal processing" and see how big the market is.
I guess my rant is specific to landscape photography which ,at least in my mind, is supposed to reflect what is seen in nature to at least some degree. Other forms of photography such as wildlife are also generally expected to be true representations. I am certainly not a purist and have and use both lightroom and photoshop to manipulate almost all of my images. And I admire and envy peoples talents for manipulating images and I am "working" hard to improve my skills.
Looking into the near future I just see a point where capturing the image in the first place becomes almost irrelevant. Which I guess is what makes me a little sad. It is becoming very hard to tell which landscapes are fantasy and which are reality. Its seems like there should almost become a point where there should be an original file posted with all pictures and we can appreciate the skill it took to capture it or the skill it took to modify it and often times both of those skills
Consider for a moment what is seen in nature, and assume that by "seen", we mean as seen with the human eye.
A typical sunlight nature scene has 14 to 20 "stops" of dynamic range, but we can't see all of that.
The human eye can see between 6 and 7 stops of dynamic range at one time, but it can adjust quickly as it scans a scene, giving an effective range of twice that, of 12 to 14 stops. Given more time, the human eye can adjust further. "Night vision" is acheived in 2 to 4 minutes, meaning we can see detail in low light shadows that we can't possibly see in normal daylight. But then we can't see detail in bright highlights because our total dynamic range is still only 12 to 14 stops.
Our cameras (film or digital) can capture 7 to 9 stops of dynamic range. And our normal printers and monitors show a little less than that.
So, what we see on screen or in print is not what we saw in real life. In fact, it's far from it. Unless, of course, we manipulate the image. The use of HDR techniques, while highly criticised by many as "unreal", can actually yield images that are much closer to the reality that the human eye perceives.
brian: You have beautiful images too. I think the difference between the LL guy and you is the amount of manipulation applied. If you knew all the various stages he used would you say anything or just present it? Besides maintaining a informative website, and reviewing equipment he is also an instructor. In this case I think it's reasonable to expect some additional manipulation instruction. Some of us would like to return to days of Ansel Adams (zone system, simple burn and dodge), but technology moves on. Think of his work like a painter would as he reinterprets the ordinary and makes a better picture.
Borderlight. Thanks and I think you hit on a great question. I honestly don't know what I would do if I was able to do what he does. Would I always explain how much of the photo is manipulated? Great question. Probably not.
Just to be clear I am in no way criticizing him or his skills. I appreciate how forthright and educational he is being and I respect his skills both of photography and post production. The way he actually lets us "look behind the curtain" is what actually got me thinking about what is okay and what isn't.
