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.
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.
Again, 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.
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 certain claim out 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.
Again, 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.
Take care,
Dan
Feb 26, 2019 at 09:46 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #14770514 « Division of Time and Light - White Sands, NM »
