Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Landscape Posting Guidelines
  

FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2015 · Other World

  
 
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Other World


PatrickDixon10 wrote:
Fantastic composition here Mark...This months' "Outdoor Photograpy" is having a great contest and your images here, rival or best and I have seen. Enter it...Klaus has won a few in the photo mags..your next!!

Your capture of the 2 day waxing crescent phase of the moon "nails" the shot
Partick


No offense to Mark, because this is indeed a gorgeous shot; I'll try and word this carefully... I would be interested to see how the photography community reacted, if an image containing a "moon augmentation" won a very prominent magazine contest. I don't know if it would be entirely positive.

Personally, I'm a fan of natural moons. But, art is art, and I have a lot of respect for that, when it is disclosed. :-)

=Matt=



Mar 05, 2015 at 12:50 PM
Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Other World


matthewsaville wrote:
No offense to Mark, because this is indeed a gorgeous shot; I'll try and word this carefully... I would be interested to see how the photography community reacted, if an image containing a "moon augmentation" won a very prominent magazine contest. I don't know if it would be entirely positive.

Personally, I'm a fan of natural moons. But, art is art, and I have a lot of respect for that, when it is disclosed. :-)

=Matt=


No offence taken. When one "augments" a moon to make it look more natural/realistic to what the eye saw (countering the unnatural shrinking effect of the wide angle) it should probably not be an issue. Of course I'll check the rules. I appreciate the heads up.



Mar 05, 2015 at 08:36 PM
matthewsaville
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Other World


Mark Metternich wrote:
No offence taken. When one "augments" a moon to make it look more natural/realistic to what the eye saw (countering the unnatural shrinking effect of the wide angle) it should probably not be an issue. Of course I'll check the rules. I appreciate the heads up.


I was curious so I looked up the 2014 finalists and winners, and it seems that there are plenty of composites and exposure blends among them, though not necessarily any "moon augmentations" that I could tell.

I think your choice of using a 50mm is quite appropriate, actually, considering that is what the human eye normally sees at. The photo looks "normal", indeed. Of course had you used an 800mm lens, or if the moon had appeared to have clouds *behind* it, ... then I'd have asked if your camera had a "Peter Lik mode"... ;-)



Mar 09, 2015 at 02:50 PM
Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Other World


aFeinberg wrote:
Looking good to me. Will have to talk story with you concerning the 8bit issue. Nice work sir

aF



After talking with a couple Adobe folks I am a little bit less convinced that the 8 bit selection issue is as bad as previously thought (yet I still believe making custom 16 bit masks is a good idea if one is going to make substantial adjustments and also makes a lot of enlargements). I put a comment on Tony Kuypers blog about it, but it has been "awaiting moderation" for almost 2 weeks now:

Hi Tony.
Thank you very much for this article/blog post and helping to clear the air about “8 bit – live selections” and how they may or may not effect 16 bit data. I very much appreciate it being addressed head on. Many years ago I used to use a variety of custom luminosity masks, a lot of which were based on 8 bit live – “dancing ants” – selections. Then I quit about 6-7 years ago because of feedback I got from some guru types I relied heavily on for information. What I started to do was use more custom 16 bit masks and of course the Layer Style “Blend if” options I currently teach in my video tutorials. Currently, I am doing a lot of digging and research about the inner workings of PS and it is sometimes challenging to say the least. I am finding that it might not have been adjustments to marching ant “live selections” that caused the issue of posterization in both mine and some of my clients 16 bit enlargements. Although still uncertain, it could have been caused by a number of things including adjusting the actual selection itself (as one example, “refine edge”) before making an adjustment to the actual pixel data. I am still NOT sure yet of the specific culprit or culprits that caused the real world degrading. Looks like, years ago, I may have gotten bad info about adjusting 8 bit, live selections and how it effects the 16 bit data. But the posterization was unequivocally there for years (on some, but not all of the images) and now (after weaning off of 8 bit selection use) it isn’t (in both my own work and some of my clients). So, as an educator myself, I really need to get to the bottom of what has been the destructive components in workflow. When I figure those out with certainty, I will let everyone know. Anyways, thank you for your patience. If my information previously given was based on misconception (about how 8 bit selections effect 16 bit data) I apologize. Your inner workings of Photoshop and some of your tutorials over the years have been a huge inspiration to me.

Tony's Blog



Mar 17, 2015 at 10:10 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Landscape Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.