jimmy462
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #5 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not. | |
Camperjim wrote:
Jimmy,
I think your examples are great. Your link to the landscape images is especially helpful.
If any of these were posted on FM, they would receive great praise with comments like great capture, great light. Some people would comment: I hope I get lucky and find conditions like this.
It is unfortunate that we cannot see the corresponding raw files. I have no doubt that many of the viewers would be shocked at the level of enhancement that can be attained with skillful post processing.
I don't know how many of these are composites. Probably only a few. That to me is irrelevant. The PP experts can do wonders with a single file.
Again, I am in no way pointing the finger at these image makers. I don't consider any of this to be dishonest or trickery. These photographers have great skill and have developed their style of producing images with great impact usually with some level of realism....Show more →
Hi CamperJim,
Thanks for your feedback, that was merely serendipity at play on finding those off-board links!  FWIW, My only purpose here has been to try and bring clarity to the differences between "subjective critiques" and "forensic evaluations" when it comes to our observations of landscape imagery.
I think, where conversations like this thread fall into confusion is that these two different subject matters get confused for each other and, so, end up getting discussed simultaneously. And, this makes for a confounding mess of disparate communications which ends up spiraling into pointlessness. So, before the train jumps the track I'm going to give this another try from a different angle...
My interpretation of the OP's original commentary...
David Baldwin wrote:
...but I do wonder if some photographic genres are being image manipulated to a point waaaaaaaaaaay beyond any relationship to a real scene (does that matter btw).
...was that he was using his own "subjective critique" to try and describe his "forensic evaluations" of the differences he notes in differing styles of photographic representations. In simpler language, the OP had a personal opinion (subjective) about observed and actual differences in post-processing (forensic) that asked a specific question...my interpretation of that question being...
Jimmy462 wrote
"When is a landscape image no longer about the landscape subject and the image becomes, instead, a collection of abstraction subjects/exercises involving landscape elements?"
...and I think the question is both valid and important to discuss from the artist/creator stand-point. The forensics of our art (the tips, tricks, methods, techniques, tutorials, considerations, etc.) of what we do as photographic artists/creators, methinks, should well be the life-blood of our discussions.
Another way confusion arises is when it comes to matters of opinion. Opinions of personal taste, such as, "good or bad", "like or dislike" or "approve or disapprove" are not the same as opinions of quantification and/or qualification, such as "because the image had this done to it, it is of this or that category". It is the act of quantifying and/or qualifying our artistic endeavours which gives us the basis for our collective artistic language. And we all are participants in creating the vocabulary of what we do as photographic artists/creators..."PJ", "HDR", Moon Crimes", "Impossible", "Real". And where those definitions and terminologies need refinement and/or improvement we partake in discussing our opinions on those "forensic" discussions. Opinions of "personal taste" are a different conversation.
And, keeping on the matter of opinion a bit longer...the confusion between the two types of opinion happens in both directions. Disliking the the level to which HDR was applied to an image gets confused with being a judgement (read: opinion) on the use of the technique as a whole. Conversely an opinion on the technique of HDR processing as a whole gets confused with being a judgement of taste towards a specific image. "And that's how the train jumped off it's tracks and had an awful crash, Honey." 
And, maybe that's where this thread is heading. My hope here has been to broaden the discussion of our vocabulary.
Creativity ignores boundaries, but it is through creativity that we create "new things". As long as processing abilities evolve and personal ingenuity persists we will continue to reinvent what it is we do as artists. That these "new things" we create become "new genres" unto themselves we can, and will, offer our forensic opinions and diagnoses along the way on how to define them. "Art" is not all that we humans create, we create language, we create meanings (read: definitions), and we create the vocabulary to go with it. (In fact, these are all arts unto themselves!) So, our "Art" is not exempt from these processes, and to argue otherwise (as some here have) is merely wishful thinking.
So, to bring this back to the beginning...the OP's query about...
David Baldwin wrote:
"...night" photos made up of composite exposures, partly based on day or twilight images, and partly based at night"
...is a forensic observation. His opinion that it is maybe something other than a generic (my word) landscape is a valid forensic question. My agreement with the OP's forensic sentiments (as stated in a previous post) remain. And, where the OP offered no personal definition of this particular technique, I will...I call that technique, "Collage". That is my forensic analysis, Now, since a particular image has not been shown as an example of that technique in the course of this thread, anyone confusing my "forensic opinion" with an "opinion of taste" would be making an inaccurate observation and/or coming to an erroneous conclusion.
Anyhoo, I certainly hope this helps move the conversation along! My 10-cents worth, this time, and, again, thanks for letting me play!
Best to all,
Jimmy G
|
Archive 2013 · Blended landscape images - legitimate or not.
