MajeedB Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
matthewsaville wrote:
"Romanticizing" is perfectly fine, and if you're hoping to get prints onto the walls of the masses, or make calendars or post cards, this image is stunning.
The issue is less about photographers just being jaded by seeing lots of 16mm images, and is more about honesty, disclosure, and "photography" versus "digital art" in society in general.
I disclosed that I shot the moon at a longer focal length everywhere I posted this shot, including here.
matthewsaville wrote
Enlarging the moon beyond just a few %, IMO, passes into the realm of a digital fabrication. In other words, with a moon this big I half expect to seek Kirk and Spock pointing Tricorders at these plants.
But what is a "Few %"? I mean, it's all relative. When you point a wide angle lens at a scene, things are gonna get really big in front of the lens, and really small at the furthest parts of the scene. So small, that in the RAW, the moon could've been mistaken for a smudge in the sky or a part of the cloud.
matthewsaville wrote
It can be called art, it can be called photographic art, but if it were me, I'd simply call it "digital art".
Yeah, I don't stake any claim to be a photo-journalist. But when I take liberties beyond normal, in post processing, I include that in the description.
matthewsaville wrote
I'll just add this: The scene was gorgeously composed. The light was perfectly timed. The moon, in its 16mm glory, would have still been a nice touch. I guess in this day and age of online one-upmanship, stepping things up to a level of eye-popping incredibility is a great way to create an eye-grabbing image, or simply one that does justice to the breathtaking sight you actually beheld in real life. That's fine, but it's not necessarily what gets me excited...
=Matt=
I don't think for me this has anything to do with one-upmanship, but representing the way I saw and experienced the scene. The moon was a big part of this scene, in person, but that was just entirely lost at 16mm. I've mentioned earlier in the thread that we "see" at about 50mm. So realistically, the moon could be half the size here and perhaps a few points dimmer-- but even with a more conservative focal length blend like that, people are very used to seeing what the moon looks like at 16mm. It's simply not how the moon looks in a landscape, to me.
|