p.2 #7 · Division of Time and Light - White Sands, NM
Klaus,
These are rather striking (pun intended in a couple of cases!) images and, among other things, they demonstrate an impressive level of post processing skills. The quality of the cloudscape in the first one is impressive, reminding me just a bit of a Camille Seamans print that we have.
Since this is a feedback forum, I want to be honest about the third image. Such Milky Way constructions are quite popular these days, and they certainly claim our attention. When it comes to the degree of post-processing required to get them to have the appearance that is so popular, there is a fine line between "enough" and "too much." My reaction (and others may respond differently) to the third photograph here is to be distracted by the abrupt division between the processed Milky Way image created in quite low light, no doubt, and the bright light above the horizon and the foreground, obviously photographed in much different conditions.
It is not my position that photographs must be literally "real" and only aspire to record what was there. I believe that the photographer's role is, to a great extent, to interpret the subject and express a personal vision of it. But the camera does carry the "burden of reality" to some extent, and it is possible to push things far enough that we go past "that's remarkable" to "that could never happen!" in an abrupt way, breaking the illusion. As one who spends quite a bit of time "out there" where the Milky Way can be seen, it registers for me as a strong visual dissonance.
I understand the popularity of such images and the photography and post-processing skills required to produce them — but this one, at least for me and despite its graphical attractions, takes it just a bit too far.
Also...
Jeffrey wrote:
Nice imaging. So, how do you get four strikes in one image like that?
There are a couple of likely possibilities. You could encounter a particularly active cell and leave your shutter open long enough to register multiple strikes — though that is problematic given that clouds tend to move too much between strikes. Or you could use one frame for the majority of the image and then mask in other layers containing the additional bolts in post. (These aren't quite the only possibilities.)
Such composites are quite common in landscape (and other types of) photography, and almost all of us use the technique at times. I've used it for things as mundane as removing the tracks of flying mosquitos from mountains landscapes, or to deal with light imbalances between different areas of the subject.
p.2 #9 · Division of Time and Light - White Sands, NM
Jeffrey, I have seen and cspured 5 bolts before. A storm of this magnitude with the rotation and magnitude of it's strength was throwing 2-3 bolts at least a dozen times. The hail and rain create a lot of electrons throughout the cloud do discharges are often very powerful.This is the desert Southwest and when these storms often top out at 50K in altitude you are going to get a lot of lightning.
Jeffrey wrote:
Nice imaging. So, how do you get four strikes in one image like that?
p.2 #10 · Division of Time and Light - White Sands, NM
Thanks for your feedback.
I am not one who enjoys the 30 second High ISO milky way images. They look ok on the internet but print one and they look pretty crappy for the most part. There is quite a bit of trailing that looks horrible when enlarged.
But many people are brainwashed on how the milky way shots should look.
I have had photographers tell me the 30 second exposures are exactly what the eye sees. On the contrary they aren't even close to what our eye sees and neither is the corresponding landscape. So why does it matter if someone is shooting at 30 seconds at ISO 6400 or 20 minutes at ISO 800?
Personally and 90% of my client LOVE them and details they see in these.
I shoot everything in the field on location, same night, true to life images.
I have developed my technique on doing these shots and yes on the internet they look a bit much but in print at 40x60 they look amazing.
We are brainwashed to see one thing and believe it's real when in fact neither one is what our eye can see. So why not get as much detail out of the milky way as possible?
If we shot the milky way shots as our eye sees them the fad would have never got out of the camera.
I sell a LOT of these images. My clients and collectors love them so I am not about to bow to photographers who think they are a bit much. Unless of course they want to send me checks every month
By the way, I do very little post other than blending the two images together. I use bright stars in my Earth exposure to place the milky way in it's exact position. The long exposures contain all the details I need. Only some simple levels, contrast adjustments mostly. Saturation is already there and tend to desaturate just a bit.
Thanks though
gdanmitchell wrote:
Klaus,
These are rather striking (pun intended in a couple of cases!) images and, among other things, they demonstrate an impressive level of post processing skills. The quality of the cloudscape in the first one is impressive, reminding me just a bit of a Camille Seamans print that we have.
Since this is a feedback forum, I want to be honest about the third image. Such Milky Way constructions are quite popular these days, and they certainly claim our attention. When it comes to the degree of post-processing required to get them to have the appearance that is so popular, there is a fine line between "enough" and "too much." My reaction (and others may respond differently) to the third photograph here is to be distracted by the abrupt division between the processed Milky Way image created in quite low light, no doubt, and the bright light above the horizon and the foreground, obviously photographed in much different conditions.
It is not my position that photographs must be literally "real" and only aspire to record what was there. I believe that the photographer's role is, to a great extent, to interpret the subject and express a personal vision of it. But the camera does carry the "burden of reality" to some extent, and it is possible to push things far enough that we go past "that's remarkable" to "that could never happen!" in an abrupt way, breaking the illusion. As one who spends quite a bit of time "out there" where the Milky Way can be seen, it registers for me as a strong visual dissonance.
I understand the popularity of such images and the photography and post-processing skills required to produce them — but this one, at least for me and despite its graphical attractions, takes it just a bit too far.
Also...
There are a couple of likely possibilities. You could encounter a particularly active cell and leave your shutter open long enough to register multiple strikes — though that is problematic given that clouds tend to move too much between strikes. Or you could use one frame for the majority of the image and then mask in other layers containing the additional bolts in post. (These aren't quite the only possibilities.)
Such composites are quite common in landscape (and other types of) photography, and almost all of us use the technique at times. I've used it for things as mundane as removing the tracks of flying mosquitos from mountains landscapes, or to deal with light imbalances between different areas of the subject.
p.2 #16 · Division of Time and Light - White Sands, NM
Paul, Monsoon season. Mid June through October us best. I've had my best luck late August though September.
Beware of the heat though. Best to stay off the dunes until she storms actually start building. Bring tons of water!
Paul.K wrote:
White Sands may be my favorite location to photograph ever. What time of year are the storms active?
