KKapple wrote:
Thank you guys for the comments and compliments.
I appreciated them. I just wanted to post the image since I have never posted it before.
I have several years worth of images I have never posted before here or on other sites.
So you might see a few more pop up later.
I always enjoy seeing places like this that are either rarely seen or never seen before.
Having been there at the absoulte calculated best time to have the moon in the sky like Michaels image I can say it is a double exposure. My assistant was Fatali's in house framer and Michael made suggestions that he did double exposures often. I doubt Michael knocked it down and it has more to do with vastly increased visitation.
These places are remote and there is nobody to prevent people from climbing on or destroying these areas.
In 2001 I did en expo on White Pocket at the gallery. The BLM manager for the AZ Strip came in and told me that I had to take down the description tags as it told people where it was and they had only 3 people assigned to the entire Vermillion Cliffs / so Escalante area. They were having too many people getting stuck in the sand on the way to White Pocket. They really don't have the manpower to police these areas.
Another one to illustrate you can get colour, a quick processing, no saturation bump, cloudy white balance.
You'll notice a rock perched atop the Teapot formation, I've no idea how this got there, my theory is it was thrown there as part of an attempt to knock the formation down, this taken 29th September 2005.
Whilst I was there I met a couple of miners from one of the nearby gas mining fields who were wandering around the site with a few beers. They were nice enough fellows, but I think if the Teapot was toppled by unnatural causes, it was likely them or their colleagues as opposed to anyone else. It's all speculation at this point, we'll never know for sure.
KKapple wrote:
You did get some nice color there DJoy.
There were storms around when I was there so I never really got a direct beam of light right at sunset.
Those storms gave you some nice cloud detail though, my sky was blank and uninteresting so I regard mine as little more than a record shot. I like your initial shot from this thread, more context to the location and the subtle twilight colours appeal to me. And the moon works too
Awesome captures looks like something from a different time and place, awesome colors and light, what a shame this gorgeous structure was destroyed, how could someone be so damn destructive and for what purpose did it possibly serve. I'm glad you were able to document this beautiful location before the destruction Keith
So that's why I could not find it two years ago... Man, I wish I would have known it was gone before looking for it for hours... Not the best neighborhood...
I can say from my experience, the color is mostly real. The saturation is increased, but its not added, just enhanced. At certain times of the year, it would set in the perfect spot to allow some nice last rays. After many visits, I finally got the timing right, and went back the following year to shoot it with my 4x5 and unfortunately it was toppled the previous week. I did get some good shots of it on 35mm though and felt very lucky to have even gotten the chance to see it. The moon however, is not real. It was definately added. The sun is setting mostly behind the photograher (slightly off to the left), and the moon in his shot is a crescent. You can't have a crescent moon at sunset on the opposite horizon. It has to be a full moon, or mostly full.
akavalun wrote:
I can say from my experience, the color is mostly real. The saturation is increased, but its not added, just enhanced. At certain times of the year, it would set in the perfect spot to allow some nice last rays. After many visits, I finally got the timing right, and went back the following year to shoot it with my 4x5 and unfortunately it was toppled the previous week. I did get some good shots of it on 35mm though and felt very lucky to have even gotten the chance to see it.
I don't suppose any of the local residents have come forward to finger the vandal?
The moon however, is not real. It was definately added. The sun is setting mostly behind the photograher (slightly off to the left), and the moon in his shot is a crescent. You can't have a crescent moon at sunset on the opposite horizon. It has to be a full moon, or mostly full.
Exactly.
That's the shame of it. Once you get caught faking one shot, your entire body of work becomes suspect. For someone like Fatali, who is milking the 'Photographer God' theme to boost print prices, this is a big deal.
Greg Campbell wrote:
I don't suppose any of the local residents have come forward to finger the vandal?
Exactly.
That's the shame of it. Once you get caught faking one shot, your entire body of work becomes suspect. For someone like Fatali, who is milking the 'Photographer God' theme to boost print prices, this is a big deal.
If he would have just said he added the moon, then I think people would have accepted it better.
But even when he first came out with the image, a lot of people had been there already and new it was not possible.
With regard to 'impossible' moon locations, here's a NIFTY sun and moon calculator I found online. The moon can, when several days old, attain a surprising amount of northerly or southerly separation from the setting sun.
Once you set your rough location, use the keys listed below to zip through time and see when and where the sun and moon will rise and set. The red and blue lines radiating from the plot's center indicate the azimuth of the sun and moon at rise and set.
You may use the keys "y", "m", "d", "h", "n" to increase the year, month, date, hour, or minute, or <SHIFT> key and "y", "m", "d", "h", "n" to decrease the year, month, date, hour, or minute.
What a wicked shot. And like you said, nothing 'wrong' w/ manipulating as long as people are honest up front about it. Shame it had to go that way. As for your shot the color and mood is wicked...though you said half way down that the moon was added...why not include that in the original description?? Full disclosure?
