ChrisKayler wrote:
This scene just screams "Colorado" Love it. The misty vignette adds a really nice touch in my opinion, and the yellow dandelions contrasting the relatively neutral colors in the background helps suck your eye into the frame. Not to mention the amazing curvy stream. Masterfully crafted composition, and a really successful image in my opinion.
Edit: Hadn't noticed it before at this small size, but I do see what Scott and others are pointing out. Kind of a bummer there if this is a blend and wasn't presented that way.
I was not aware of the etiquette that we needed to declare a blend. Not arguing, just asking. Almost all of my images are HDR. And before that were blended by other means, although I seldom blend for focus purposes or to add sky's.
ben egbert wrote:
I was not aware of the etiquette that we needed to declare a blend. Not arguing, just asking. Almost all of my images are HDR. And before that were blended by other means, although I seldom blend for focus purposes or to add sky's.
Agree with Ben..that is why many, if not the majority, are called "compositions".
Dan
ChrisKayler wrote:
This scene just screams "Colorado" Love it. The misty vignette adds a really nice touch in my opinion, and the yellow dandelions contrasting the relatively neutral colors in the background helps suck your eye into the frame. Not to mention the amazing curvy stream. Masterfully crafted composition, and a really successful image in my opinion.
Edit: Hadn't noticed it before at this small size, but I do see what Scott and others are pointing out. Kind of a bummer there if this is a blend and wasn't presented that way.
Thanks again everybody for your thoughts,
When I post an image here, I usually don't give it an introduction or anything ( my last shot I didn't even give it a title, and got hacked on by Jim ) But I usually don't give my processing steps as an intro. Always hope the image can stand on it's own merit with the vision I had for it. If I'm asked I have no problem explaining what I did. If some flaw gets pointed out, well that's exactly what I'm after, as I learn from that.
But over the years I've developed my processing style, because I love the process of processing the vision. Have never put a limit on that. I work my images in the field and out to get what I'm after. If I have to put 12 images together to get what I'm after, I'll do it, and I have .
But this blend was simply moving the foreground more foreword for composition reasons. The fact that it was pointed out tells me that I was sloppy, which is exactly the feedback I wanted to know when I posted this image.
This is a pretty cool shot! Love the composition and the look of this. As for any cleaning up of an image, I have no problem with that. I would think many of us will clean up our images. It can be cloning out a piece of trash in a shot, or a stray branch. I personally would rather clone out a branch or a stray flower than to actually go pull out that flower or break that branch off.
Agreed here. The fg looks faked. And glad you explained why. There have been a number of images now posted in the last week that have caused issues. Best to just say 'artistic liberties' were taken when doing those kinds of blends/compositions. Dont have to spell it out necessarily, but just that something was done so you dont get 'caught'.
ben egbert wrote:
I was not aware of the etiquette that we needed to declare a blend. Not arguing, just asking. Almost all of my images are HDR. And before that were blended by other means, although I seldom blend for focus purposes or to add sky's.
No, I think you are stretching the definition of "Blend" here, as another poster is stretching the definition of "Composition", when applied to Landscape Photography as a genre. And that's where the lines get blurry.
We have had these discussions before on this board, and they can get quite heated (justifiably so). There's a very long thread somewhere in the 2011-2013 range discussing this topic. The general consensus, was that the original composition remain intact. Adding moons, animals, footprints, flowers, repositioning foregrounds or backgrounds, replacing skies (unless taken at the same location and essentially the same time), all were considered crossing the line into digital art. On the other hand, focus stacking, post processing skills to enhance an image, removing a minor twig or beer bottle were OK. Bringing a your "vision" to the viewer is entirely different than bringing what you felt and experienced to the viewer. However, the consensus was that the presenter choose where to display their work, but disclose significant changes. They're best off disclosing anyway, because it's unpleasant when it unravels...
To me it becomes a matter of integrity. Is a person who spends 90% of their time in front of a computer pasting together an image the same quality landscape photographer as one who spends his 90% out in the field in the weather, looking for and discovering authentic landscape scenes? And often comes back empty handed? I know my answer. Yours may differ however. So, when Scott Kroeker made his comment regarding this image it did make me stop and think again.
ckcarr wrote:
No, I think you are stretching the definition of "Blend" here, as another poster is stretching the definition of "Composition", when applied to Landscape Photography as a genre. And that's where the lines get blurry.
We have had these discussions before on this board, and they can get quite heated (justifiably so). There's a very long thread somewhere in the 2011-2013 range discussing this topic. The general consensus, was that the original composition remain intact. Adding moons, animals, footprints, flowers, repositioning foregrounds or backgrounds, replacing skies (unless taken at the same location and essentially the same time), all were considered crossing the line into digital art. On the other hand, focus stacking, post processing skills to enhance an image, removing a minor twig or beer bottle were OK. Bringing a your "vision" to the viewer is entirely different than bringing what you felt and experienced to the viewer. However, the consensus was that the presenter choose where to display their work, but disclose significant changes. They're best off disclosing anyway, because it's unpleasant when it unravels...
To me it becomes a matter of integrity. Is a person who spends 90% of their time in front of a computer pasting together an image the same quality landscape photographer as one who spends his 90% out in the field in the weather, looking for and discovering authentic landscape scenes? And often comes back empty handed? I know my answer. Yours may differ however. So, when Scott Kroeker made his comment regarding this image it did make me stop and think again.
When I was kneeling in the weeds and muck looking through my ultra wide, I thought what do I want here ?. What am I after ?. I knew what what I wanted, and didn't think about my integrity when when I shot and composed this. I always try to be proactive with my photography, and not come back " empty handed ". But to each his own.
ckcarr wrote:
No, I think you are stretching the definition of "Blend" here, as another poster is stretching the definition of "Composition", when applied to Landscape Photography as a genre. And that's where the lines get blurry.
We have had these discussions before on this board, and they can get quite heated (justifiably so). There's a very long thread somewhere in the 2011-2013 range discussing this topic. The general consensus, was that the original composition remain intact. Adding moons, animals, footprints, flowers, repositioning foregrounds or backgrounds, replacing skies (unless taken at the same location and essentially the same time), all were considered crossing the line into digital art. On the other hand, focus stacking, post processing skills to enhance an image, removing a minor twig or beer bottle were OK. Bringing a your "vision" to the viewer is entirely different than bringing what you felt and experienced to the viewer. However, the consensus was that the presenter choose where to display their work, but disclose significant changes. They're best off disclosing anyway, because it's unpleasant when it unravels...
To me it becomes a matter of integrity. Is a person who spends 90% of their time in front of a computer pasting together an image the same quality landscape photographer as one who spends his 90% out in the field in the weather, looking for and discovering authentic landscape scenes? And often comes back empty handed? I know my answer. Yours may differ however. So, when Scott Kroeker made his comment regarding this image it did make me stop and think again.
If you are referring to me Craig about my comment on the word "composition". Look at the meaning in any dictionary..There is no subset for the styles of art the word is to describe.It is quite clear. Also look it up in a Latin translation dictionary, after all that is where the word was derived from. It is one's "perception" of the meaning that gets muddled.
Not meaning to get into a heated discussion here with anyone over symantics.. not saying anyone's explanation is wrong, but when fingers get pointed(if at me).I believe an explanantion might clarify the poster's thinking.
Good luck to all!! "
Dan
Craig summed that up nicely. This is now the 3rd image in 5 days that has been posted by someone (fb/500px) that has been significantly manipulated (yes moving whole chunks of land is significant) without disclosure up front.
I dont care how art is achieved but as photographers we must be clear about what is nature and what is our creation.
This has so many elements to it that are lovely. Why not just work with what nature gave you? And if you want to achieve something that you are after just clearly state when posting 'artistic liberties' were taken.
I wrote this after the first image controversy where a sky was moved (yes, moved) 30 degrees over.
Aaron, a fine article!! Succint and valid! Great job. Your statement of "what is nature and what is creation" put it very well.
In my interjection of the word "composition", hindsight has both of you entirely correct. I didn't meant to suggest that a major manipulation of the image, was part of my dialog. As you state we now enter the realm of "artistic liberties"...and I believe has some validity in the definition of composition BUT....that liberty taken should be noted.
But personally I don't blame anyone for, as Brian sez, not thinking about "the integrity" prior to the final result. Again the major manipulation of a posted image should be noted and appreciated by viewers and personally a before and after posted also. He wanted to present his "composition" for all to admire. The keener eyes in the forum saw something amiss and pointed it out while still making a positive comment.
Again Craig..no disrespect meant at all in my response..never entered my mind in my reply. If it came across that way please dismiss it!And thanks Aaron for allowing me to see a part I may..well did..not invision when responding to Craig's comments!
This is what FM is all about...learning thru discussion and interaction on a friendly constructive way!!
Bravo!!
Dan
ben egbert wrote:
I was not aware of the etiquette that we needed to declare a blend. Not arguing, just asking. Almost all of my images are HDR. And before that were blended by other means, although I seldom blend for focus purposes or to add sky's.
Ben? Really? Blending an exposure and blending in an object that wasn't in the scene are two totally different topics. Certainly you can recognize that.
Danpbphoto wrote:
Agree with Ben..that is why many, if not the majority, are called "compositions".
Dan
Hi Dan,
Just because two words share many of the same letters does not mean they are the same word or have the same meaning.
A composition is a scene that we capture as Landscape photographers. Simple. For example we stand at the Grand Canyon and set up our camera and and as we adjust the camera and lens the resulting view we see in our view finder is our "composition".
Now compositing, would be if back at home in front of the computer, we took our fine composition of the Grand Canyon and now "composited" moon that was not there, and perhaps even "composited" in a wolf on the edge on the canyon that was not there. Compositing refers to the "pasting" in if you typically an object from one photograph into another completely different photograph.
Just because two words share many of the same letters does not mean they are the same word or have the same meaning.
A composition is a scene that we capture as Landscape photographers. Simple. For example we stand at the Grand Canyon and set up our camera and and as we adjust the camera and lens the resulting view we see in our view finder is our "composition".
Now compositing, would be if back at home in front of the computer, we took our fine composition of the Grand Canyon and now "composited" moon that was not there, and perhaps even "composited" in a wolf on the edge on the canyon that was not there. Compositing refers to the "pasting" in if you typically an object from one photograph into another completely different photograph.
Thanks all. I know this topic isnt going away, and I dont want people to stop creating what every art is inside them. I just want integrity and honesty. Too many people spend too much time and energy trying to capture what others simply put together.
<3
Jim's point is very valid'
"Ben? Really? Blending an exposure and blending in an object that wasn't in the scene are two totally different topics. Certainly you can recognize that.
bf5hpjg wrote:
Jim,
I don't think you read down far enough. Dan's eloquently stated "revision" should clear up the above . Aaron..wonderful article...
Dan
Thanks, I hadn't seen that Dan had revised his comments. But Dan had originally spoken what probably others think too, so it was good to get out in the open the definitions of the words we are discussing here.
) But I usually don't give my processing steps as an intro. Always hope the image can stand on it's own merit with the vision I had for it. If I'm asked I have no problem explaining what I did. If some flaw gets pointed out, well that's exactly what I'm after, as I learn from that. 
"