It's wonderful digital art but IMHO fine here in the Landscape forum as well.
Although obvious to the trained eye, Daniel made full disclosure of it being composite.
Whenever I track a astro landscape, I generally use a twilight image for the foreground in the composite to keep it on the more realistic side of landscape.
I assume the milky way was in that general direction but it's pretty tricky to plan it's position like that.
The MW is a little on the cool side, but I think it is necessary to blend the color balance with the ocean.
Michael H wrote:
...but I frequently feel there is a bit of a good-ol-boys club to this and other sections of this great site. I would love to see that go away.
Encouragement, even a simple click of a like button go a long ways towards encouraging others to share their vision.
Simple Definition of art
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
This is how I saw the image/composite. I like the work, for me... I can imagine having something like this printed large and on the wall. Nice vision and execution!
hatch1921 wrote:
Simple Definition of art
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
This one however is the "Landscape Photographer" forum. It implies photography. And as far as this "blending" happening or taking place all the time here... That's simply not true. People get called out on it when a blend is obviously false. Some, of course get away with it, because they are clever.
I suppose I could find a picture of a wolf, or an elk, or a bear, and then blend it onto a cool cliff and post it in the Nature and Wildlife forum. I'm sure that would go over with a bang.
The discussion as to what is acceptable, or perhaps ethical is the better word, regarding a landscape PHOTOGRAPH has taken place here many times over the years. Of course, ethics are personal. Some will believe in one shot.. and live with it. Other's will blend like crazy, until they have created a Peter Lik original, with a moon the size of the sun. I find it ironic how this boards members will jump all over a Peter Lik too.
As far as "Disclosure?" No, there is not full disclosure here. It is two separate images combined. They may have been taken minutes apart, they may have been taken days apart. They may not have been taken at the same location even.
I love the smug little "Voted!" comments. You haven't even looked at the other 100 pictures posted here on the board. It's simply "jumping on a bandwagon." You have no appreciation for the others...
This one however is the "Landscape Photographer" forum. It implies photography. And as far as this "blending" happening or taking place all the time here... That's simply not true. People get called out on it when a blend is obviously false. Some, of course get away with it, because they are clever.
I suppose I could find a picture of a wolf, or an elk, or a bear, and then blend it onto a cool cliff and post it in the Nature and Wildlife forum. I'm sure that would go over with a bang.
The discussion as to what is acceptable, or perhaps ethical is the better word, regarding a landscape PHOTOGRAPH has taken place here many times over the years. Of course, ethics are personal. Some will believe in one shot.. and live with it. Other's will blend like crazy, until they have created a Peter Lik original, with a moon the size of the sun. I find it ironic how this boards members will jump all over a Peter Lik too.
As far as "Disclosure?" No, there is not full disclosure here. It is two separate images combined. They may have been taken minutes apart, they may have been taken days apart. They may not have been taken at the same location even.
I love the smug little "Voted!" comments. You haven't even looked at the other 100 pictures posted here on the board. It's simply "jumping on a bandwagon." You have no appreciation for the others...
No..I didn't.... I found the definition on the Internet... therefore... it must be true.I'm also a French model. As far as being upset... which is how your rant comes across... meh. I like the shot... I voted... blended images, single capture, digital art... Photoshop... whatever... Oh... and I love Peter Lik
I like the end result, although it's obviously not "natural" from my few outings to photograph the MW. But it doesn't bother me.
I think we could all benefit from some clarification from OP:
Are the images taken on the same location, same day, minutes apart? Or are they composites of two photographs from different locations and days? I think that would make a huge difference here on how much "art" and how much "landscape" is going on in this image.
ckcarr wrote:
As far as "Disclosure?" No, there is not full disclosure here. It is two separate images combined. They may have been taken minutes apart, they may have been taken days apart. They may not have been taken at the same location even.
Uhm...from the original post; "It is a 2 shot blend. One for the milky way and one for the glow from dusk"
And I will remain of the opinion that the digital manipulation -frequently- found here is just the same. It is very common to see multiple image blends. The end result is also frequently (but certainly not always) impossible dynamic range or unrealistic presentation. I'm not going to debate it but I don't see the difference.
May 31, 2016 at 02:55 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I generally never care too much about what exactly my eye would have seen, especially on an image like this. Our camera don't capture light like our eyes do, so that is one great thing about our art form. Having said that, I have seen this same shot taken before by others and on the others it was also my critique to pull back a little on the highlights on the horizon and in the "doorway". It almost looks like a full on sunset with a blazing mid night Milky Way at the same time which causes a little disconnect to me. The foreground luminance is pretty high too. I think it is close, but could be closer in terms of finding the balance of realism and creativity here. Amazing photo with a few fine tuning tweaks still to be had IMO. And the fact that you have a lot of "realists/purists" on this forum would make me want to get it closer...
A beautiful, ethereal rendition of a scene captured and presented with artistic vision.
If I walked into a gallery and saw this, I could not care less about how it was created and would not care if the artist/photographer "disclosed" his secret that it was a blend.
If I liked it, I'd buy it.
Images speak for themselves.
Now, manipulated images presented as "photo-journalism" are another matter, but this is not that.
Of all the recent posts in this forum of late - I seem to be coming back to this one to see how the discussion is going. I find it fascinating to see how the debate over "what is real", manipulated, blended, etc., unfold each time an image like this shows up. For those that care - I fall more in the camp of every digital image is "manipulated" in one form or another - and I am ok with that. If I like something - I like it. I find it amusing that (some) of those that are steadfastly against these type of images are also the ones that offer suggestions to "Clone" this or that out of an image to make it "better". To me it's all the same.
I was also interested since I posted an image specifically in the Abstract forum a few days ago - an image that I blended using a shot of Torres Del Paine and the MW ("Starry Torres"). Although the final product wasn't "reality" - (physics being what they are) - I was interested to see what others thought. Apparently, they didn't - no comments as yet (sigh). Nevertheless, I thought I would put it over there. Had I posted it here - I knew what I was in for - but at least it would have (likely) generated some feedback - which is what I was hoping for.
My final comment is on the image itself - I too think the blend is a bit "off". I think toning down the sunset in favor of matching the sky with the foreground would do wonders.
The image may not quite look right to discerning eyes but I like what's presented, including the appropriate title that also reminds me of one my favorite shows.
I would think that Daniel's disclosure that this is a 2-image blend, one for the sky and the other for the scene below, should be sufficient for most of us that may otherwise question it's plausibility. This forum should continue to be diverse enough to include blended images like this.
dgdg wrote:
It's wonderful digital art but IMHO fine here in the Landscape forum as well.
Although obvious to the trained eye, Daniel made full disclosure of it being composite.
I agree with a lot of points that have been made, including those that question whether the Milky Way even appears in that orientation there. But this portion quoted above is all that really matters. Everything is above board and the vision is strong. If one starts kicking out digital blends, where do you draw the line?
If this were Flickr or 500px, we'd have no such disclosure, and certainly not this kind of discussion, because the culture on those sites doesn't demand it (Or can even tolerate it, I imagine).
I'm enjoying the image AND the discussion. My viewpoint is that of a novice "wannabe" landscape photographer (people have been my thing) who also had a former career in Hollywood special effects and loves science fiction. So reality isn't necessary for me to enjoy, especially when the artist is upfront about what he's done.
I can appreciate a more "pure" approach, especially as I work out my own technique, but give me a pretty fantasy image and I'll "like" it!
This forum is full of images that are juiced up and bear no resemblance to reality. Over-saturated skies, angry clouds that look like they are about to explode, fire red sunrises, most are artistically pleasing despite their pushing the truth. Why pick on this one?
Thank you for all your comments guys. It is really interesting to see all the different opinions. I can understand every single one. In my case I usually don't do any composites and if I do I always say what I have done. I count all my images as a peace of artwork, doesn't matter if they are "real" or not.
I love it, great piece of work. In the end that is all that matters to me, a lot of images posted here are not very realistic, but the intent is a beautiful image and I like it and think it was well done.
As for planing a shot like that you can do it, there is an app that runs on android or ios called Planit! for photographers, and you can plan MW shots like that and a bunch more. (I am user and no affiliation)
apsphoto wrote:
I love it, great piece of work. In the end that is all that matters to me, a lot of images posted here are not very realistic, but the intent is a beautiful image and I like it and think it was well done.
As for planing a shot like that you can do it, there is an app that runs on android or ios called Planit! for photographers, and you can plan MW shots like that and a bunch more. (I am user and no affiliation)
Archive 2016 · Stargate
Oh... and I love Peter Lik 