I love how you pulled out all the wonderful colors in the foreground.
It does seem a bit bright compared to the night sky and distant mountains. I think it ends up being a personal interpretation and I think yours is very nice.
Good job.
Well, technically the "original" was actually only a bunch of 1's and O's and when viewed correctly in raw would be black and white (almost solid black) with almost no definition. But most people today think their cameras generic JPEG algorithm settings are the "original" but it isn't. But I'll try to not be so techie/geeky and change the subject.
Killer shot man! I love your work! I have always loved the fact that you don't mind being creative and even somewhat radical sometimes in your artistic vision in photography. Even with the stream of flack one can sometimes get by "purists." I don't know if you heard Ryan Dyar's recent podcast interview but he addresses this well. I love his work and creativity but he also sometimes gets flack from those who think he pushes creativity too much. He says something to the extent of: "I don't judge you for being a purist, and I like a lot of that work, so please don't judge me for being creative." (Paraphrase). Your work has an edginess to it that I appreciate. Thank you for being honest with what you like.
Mark, I think you mean "ones" and "zeros" And yes, nobody using a digital camera can claim being a purist anyway. If they do, they don't understand how their own digital camera actually works. The analog to digital conversion kills any notion of "purism".
Anyway, nice image. The composition is striking but simple and the glow is nice. I'd probably tone the highlights down a tiny bit if it were mine, but I appreciate your personal take.
Did you use an ND on camera? Looks like the RAW is dark on the top. I wonder if omitting the filter would have made the top of the peak pop even more-so.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Well, technically the "original" was actually only a bunch of X's and O's and when viewed correctly in raw would be black and white (almost solid black) with almost no definition. But most people today think their cameras generic JPEG algorithm settings are the "original" but it isn't. But I'll try to not be so techie/geeky and change the subject.
Killer shot man! I love your work! I have always loved the fact that you don't mind being creative and even somewhat radical sometimes in your artistic vision in photography. Even with the stream of flack one can sometimes get by "purists." I don't know if you heard Ryan Dyar's recent podcast interview but he addresses this well. I love his work and creativity but he also sometimes gets flack from those who think he pushes creativity too much. He says something to the extent of: "I don't judge you for being a purist, and I like a lot of that work, so please don't judge me for being creative." (Paraphrase). Your work has an edginess to it that I appreciate. Thank you for being honest with what you like. ...Show more →
I think the line in the sand gets drawn *after* serious burning & dodging, simple exposure / focus composites, and similar techniques that are relatively traditional.
A photograph only ceases to be a "true" photograph when things start to become seriously manipulated, added, erased, or, um, ...enlarged. Before that, I think folks are welcome to "go to town" on their Lightroom etc. basic editing. Sure there's such a thing as "over-editing" even in Lightroom itself, but that is usually just part of the learning curve.
That type of art certainly has its place, but IMO its place is in commercial stock photography, as digital art, not as photographic art.
In other words, yes, Ansel Adams probably burned and dodged the crap out of "Moonrise Hernandez" ...but he did NOT photograph the moon with a 600mm lens and then do a cut-and-paste. ;-)
Gorgeous image, by the way, I think it is beautifully done. I'm a bit weirded out to see that the light appears to be emanating from the right instead of the left, since I usually see that scene as a sunrise composition, but it is gorgeous nonetheless.
Mar 09, 2015 at 02:43 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Slabshaft wrote:
Mark, I think you mean "ones" and "zeros" And yes, nobody using a digital camera can claim being a purist anyway. If they do, they don't understand how their own digital camera actually works. The analog to digital conversion kills any notion of "purism".
Anyway, nice image. The composition is striking but simple and the glow is nice. I'd probably tone the highlights down a tiny bit if it were mine, but I appreciate your personal take.
Did you use an ND on camera? Looks like the RAW is dark on the top. I wonder if omitting the filter would have made the top of the peak pop even more-so....Show more →
I think the line in the sand gets drawn *after* serious burning & dodging, simple exposure / focus composites, and similar techniques that are relatively traditional.
A photograph only ceases to be a "true" photograph...
That is kind of what I am talking about. Personally, I don't draw such lines. I think almost none of it is actually "true."
There is far too much grey area. Is a wide angle real? Like that new Canon 11-24? Is a Polarizer? Is black and white? Is a shrunk down moon from a wide angle? Is putting it back in as your eye saw it? Is long exposure water effects? How about color dodging? How about long exposure cloud effects? Is a sun star/flare? What about accentuating a light bleed? It focus stacking? Is exposure blending? How about localized Orton diffusion in the highlights since digital makes them sort of stale sometimes? What about grain? Is HDR, when done tastefully real? How about a perspective warp? How about the cameras sensitivity to the stars? An overly dark rendering? Creative White Balance usage? How about LAB color variation work? And forever on and on and on...
So, at least for me (I can not speak for others) I don't have black and white lines I draw as to what is "real" and what is not "real." And is it even supposed to be "real?" It is all ART and an artistic process IMO. But that is not to say that anything goes in my own work. We all have our ethics and standards...
What I love about Matt's work is that he is not afraid to be edgy, creative and sort of almost graphic-like when some may frown on that type of approach. Personally, I love it. I like that he is not afraid to be that way. But, honestly I love all kinds of work.
Mark Metternich wrote:
Well, technically the "original" was actually only a bunch of 1's and O's and when viewed correctly in raw would be black and white (almost solid black) with almost no definition. But most people today think their cameras generic JPEG algorithm settings are the "original" but it isn't. But I'll try to not be so techie/geeky and change the subject.
Technically, the final version is also just a bunch of 1's and 0's...
That is a cool view, and nice work with the editing whether it was in Raw on or on a tiff or psd file in Photoshop, the end result is very nice. The only thing I don't quite care for is the blur/glow effect, though I know quite a few people use it their processing, for me, it's just way over used. But outside of that, I really like the look of this.
if nothing else, this could be a mastercourse on post production...I am sure there is a lot to learn from the process you went through...and you came away with a unique image from a familiar place that in the end it got people talking...
And yes, nobody using a digital camera can claim being a purist anyway. If they do, they don't understand how their own digital camera actually works. The analog to digital conversion kills any notion of "purism".