Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Creation of an ice hole  (Read 7525 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1038
    • advantica blog
Creation of an ice hole
« on: December 30, 2016, 10:43:07 AM »

Great idea, Ignacio, and very nicely processed.
I like best the second last image, just the blue iceberg appearing in the hole.

Personally, I don't think that adding the green aurora lights helps this image. If anything, it lessens the impact of the blue ice block.
But you could use the hole image to put around something else using complementary colors, i.e. an orange pumpkin or a giraffe sliding on the ice. 

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2016, 12:36:48 PM »

Ignacio,
Another great image and a wonderful explanation of the general process and your thoughts along the way.  I always know I'll enjoy an article from you.
Thanks for contributing.
Brad Smith
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2016, 02:57:40 PM »

While I'm generally not a fan of composites (especially when it's obvious and the photographer passes it off as no being a composite) but I must say this one is exceedingly cool and deserves the award for sure!
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17059
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2016, 03:08:18 PM »

I enjoy end-of-year humour!

However, I think Les points to something really important when it comes to image processing: when one goes beyond the believable, one loses the game. Especially today, where ever fewer people believe everything their eyes show them. And ultimately, what's the point? Perhaps it might be the desire to sell prints to Philistines - in which case, go for it, serves 'em right! - but as for one's own self-respect... ?

I suppose it's a phase every PS (or whatever) learner will want to travel, just to se if he/she can do it (my own little virgin's journey involved cloning myself a fine head of hair) but it soon grows stale and absurd (not the hair, that never grew back). At least, it did become boring for me, and I do as little manipulation as I think lets me finish up with the shot I hoped I had caught. Perhaps it's just an old film man's mindset.

;-)

Rob C

Photoncollector

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2016, 04:25:37 PM »

I like the idea - but I didn't get why the iceberg should be as blue as some odd cocktail..
Logged

Pelzmann

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2016, 06:27:59 PM »

I don't care for landscape composites but this is very well done. The blue, however, is a bit extreme! I agree, adding the aurora would be overkill !!
Logged

David Sutton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
    • David Sutton Photography
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2016, 11:20:11 PM »

I like the idea - but I didn't get why the iceberg should be as blue as some odd cocktail..

Iceberg blues are always problematic. The depth and intensity are hard to reproduce.
Do you go for something "believable", or go for the shock you experienced when you saw the original colour?
David
« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 01:37:02 AM by David Sutton »
Logged

StefanM

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2017, 12:12:04 AM »

I love the concept but find the final image to be a step too far in the overall processing. I much prefer the second to last image, which better represents "reality". Would that have been a winning image though? Just because we have the tools available doesn't mean we should. :)
Logged

Richard Aksland

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2017, 02:54:47 AM »

I did like the composite photograph. I'm sure a considerable amount of work went into the creation of your landscape. Landscape? I believe more photographers have worked with their images to the point that they become unrealistic, saturation, color, etc. than photographers that have not.  I'm guilty for sure. Again, I liked your finished project and don't have a problem with manipulation, to a point.
If I am selling my work, I would label it as a composite, maybe. However, for a competition I can't imagine entering this as a landscape. Where is this imaginary landscape? I look at this photograph and want to go there, but I cannot. It doesn't exist. I might as well put together fragments of everything I shot that was beautiful, put it together, call it a landscape and enter it in contests. I would never be cold or tired again. I wouldn't have a need to even go outside again. It wouldn't matter, I won. There has to be more to this than winning. The experience and accomplishment of producing a great photograph needs to be there for me. If I enter my photographs and are judged against this one I will lose every time. Made up nature is always better than real nature, there are no flaws.
Contests such as the APPA may want to start having a category called composite.
I don't want to start a long talk about manipulation. Been there and done that. People that view our photographs are drawn to the locations and admire the beauty. It is hard enough explaining to them how my photographs are sharper, brighter and more colorful than the photographs they took with their Iphone. They already doubt that anything we do is real. We can at least be honest enough to let them know when their not real. Again, really liked the photograph.
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1504
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2017, 09:09:09 AM »

...
If I am selling my work, I would label it as a composite, maybe. However, for a competition I can't imagine entering this as a landscape. Where is this imaginary landscape? I look at this photograph and want to go there, but I cannot. It doesn't exist. I might as well put together fragments of everything I shot that was beautiful, put it together, call it a landscape and enter it in contests.
...

This is a rather extreme example as it could exist but if you went there, it wouldn't exist because over time, ice will change (if not just melt/disappear.)

For example, imagine that the piece of ice with the hole in it was transported to the other location without impacting its integrity. Now the shot can be made but if you go there, it won't exist because the ice is gone. And that's not to forget the clouds.
Logged

Dave (Isle of Skye)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1370
  • The Earth without Art is just Eh
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2017, 09:51:52 AM »

I like it and I think non-photographers would like it, but I also think that photographers who believe that we should only represent reality, even though that reality is often based on their own individual definition of what reality is and their acceptable tweaking of reality, will probably not like it. But this is their choice and we should all be OK with that, as this is one of the many differences that makes this whole 'photography' thing so rich and rewarding to so many people and in so many ways.

I often wonder if showing your work on sites such as this through the critique section, is a really valid way of ascertaining the quality of your work, as we photographers tend to favour work that is photographically competent (sharp, well exposed, well framed and compositionally pleasing etc), whereas Joe public just make up their minds on what they like through nothing more than a gut feeling. So a shot shown on here that may receive many positive critiques from fellow photographers, may have little impact on the general public and visa versa.

So my advice is to just do what floats your boat and what you want to do with photography, and if that pleases other photographers and non-photographers alike, then all well and good, but don't create work just to please others, do it primarily to please you, but with one small caveat, never dismiss advice from your fellow photographers out of hand just because you don't like it, as sometimes that critique that hurts deep down, but in the long run makes you change what you are doing for the better, is the best critique you will ever receive.

Dave
« Last Edit: January 01, 2017, 10:04:06 AM by Dave (Isle of Skye) »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17059
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2017, 02:24:54 PM »



I often wonder if showing your work on sites such as this through the critique section, is a really valid way of ascertaining the quality of your work, as we photographers tend to favour work that is photographically competent (sharp, well exposed, well framed and compositionally pleasing etc), whereas Joe public just make up their minds on what they like through nothing more than a gut feeling. So a shot shown on here that may receive many positive critiques from fellow photographers, may have little impact on the general public and visa versa.

Dave


I think that for neophytes in particular, posting pictures here is not a brilliant idea.

It's terribly easy for folks without much history to think others know better than they do, which is often the case, but hardly always. Listening to anyone else discuss aesthetics quickly shows up the failure to find a common standard: it's either herd mentality or some way out choice from another galaxie not so near us.

For learners, I still believe the answer is to study lots of other people's work, and find what pleases; that done, one gets a sense of self, oddly enough, from which to go onwards to wherever the muse leads.

The above used to be difficult and expensive before the Internet: one had to buy magazines and books. Today, you get all the images you could ever want to look at for nothing more than the trouble of consulting Google.

All another person can teach you is how to do the mechanics. It was ever so.

But I think that over-processing in digital is somewhat pointless unless for some specific commercial purpose, in which case, do what has to be done. As long as nobody tells you it's real if you ask, and it's not, who cares?

Rob

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2017, 05:05:30 PM »

Both Dave and Rob have raised some interesting points that deserve collective consideration.

However, the suggestion that "neophytes" (howsoever defined) should probably refrain from posting on this site I cannot agree with.
I thoroughly agree with Rob that (all?) photographers can benefit from studying the work of others.
One of the many great benefits of this site is the volume and diversity of work that is actually posted on this site.
Most of the work posted is absolutely top drawer but there is a spread of quality.
The fact that all the work posted does not belong in a coffee-table book does not disqualify that work from being posted on this site.

Rather than discourage people from posting images, whatever their level of expertise, we should rather encourage them to post.
Of course just posting an image is not particularly helpful if one does not receive constructive feedback.
All of us, me included, are sometimes lazy in what we post in response.
Too often we might indicate that we like or dislike an image without specifying why.
An experienced photographer may be well aware of the strengths or weaknesses of an image but for those who are in a more formative stage of their photographic journey it may not be so obvious.

It is true that I do sometimes give a minimal (but very positive) response to an image that I like, but, I made a resolution a while back to try and give an evaluation of why I like the image.
Not only is this a helpful discipline for me but hopefully helpful for the OP, and, not least a less experienced photographer who, while they also might like it, may be unsure of why the image works.

I have made what I consider an even more important resolution never to negatively criticise a posted image unless I can give a constructive reason or reasons why. I do not want to discourage anyones artistic endeavour by just canning their work.
If I don't like the image but cannot provide helpful constructive input as to why, I don't post a comment.

This forum is frequented by many many accomplished (perhaps even famous) photographers but it should not be elitist.
I often think of this site, and the forum in particular, as a kind of university - a place of learning.
And it is much more than just learning about the difference between a sensel and a pixel, the merits and demerits of CCD vs CMOS sensors, and, what in thunder a circle of confusion is. It is very much much about learning about the artistic and aesthetic in photography and developing one's own style. If you have a technical bent it is easy to study and understand the similarities and differences between CMOS and CCD sensors in isolation but the moment art and aesthetics enters the picture (pun intended) then, almost by definition, collective input is required.

Surely, all of us, collectively, have a responsibility to support and encourage others in the very endeavour in which we ourselves are engaged?

my $0.02 worth

Tony Jay
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17059
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2017, 05:05:36 AM »

"However, the suggestion that "neophytes" (howsoever defined) should probably refrain from posting on this site I cannot agree with."

Tony Jay.
.........................

Just to make it clear: I was referring to the posting of newbies images, not of written matter, which is something quite else, so I just want to make that clear in this context which, as you wrote earlier, refers to the 'critique section'.

From my own perspective, and which pretty much all my post was about, a newbie getting feedback on his photographs amounts to brainwashing by the person providing the comments; that person can only, if honest, give opinion based on his likes or dislikes. Of course, reducing the rôle of 'mentor' to this level doesn't play nicely in the ears of those making a business out of doing this very thing; as I was in my pro days, selling pictures of beautiful ladies in order to sell beer or scotch or rent out trucks, road diggers and cranes isn't an honest, objective view on anything: it's a hard sell to make money.

For example, I post this shot below. What in hell can any LuLa reader or armchair 'visual expert' say about it that is going to make an iota of difference to me? I've had a successful career in pro photography already and what I do now is totally for myself, which is exactly what any amateur is doing for himself, too. The difference is that it took me many years to get back into amateur shoes, and many more to find a pair that I felt fitted me, which is something the permanent amateur never has to do: he's already wearing them.



The typical LuLa critique provider is going to say he like/dislikes it, and his reasons are going to be about lost shadow detail, indistinct subject matter etc. etc. all of which is bullshit: the image, when I felt compelled to take it, spoke to me of lost love, of a sophisiticated, well-educated and extremely capable woman I'd met when she was just a girl of fifteen, and all sorts of things a third person will never know unless I choose to tell that person. So much the value of critique. Hence the inclusion of Without Prejudice. Equipment? All obsolete or at the kindest, obsolescent, neither bits available new anymore.

Photography, amateur, is about self. What you photograph is what you are. Nobody else can be you on your behalf; you have to do it for yourself. That's why I repeat: all anybody can teach you, without harming you, is mechanics and, with luck, maybe provide a pleasant guided tour holiday somewhere. And there's nothing in the world wrong with that, as long as the sell is honest. Personally, I wouldn't take such a thing as a gift. Neither would I take one of those group 'model shoots' as a gift. I can think of no photographic horror worse than having to do it in a herd.

That's why I advocate reading and browsing the Internet to find a genre that speaks to you more loudly and insistently than any other. When, and if you do, you've found your niche; then, just go for it. Your eye will already have formed or recognized itself at that point, so all you need, if you have not got it yet, is some mechanical advice. In that way, free from opinion from people, only the images you see will speak and influence you and help you find yourself. And that's pretty much all there is to photography

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 05:10:40 AM by Rob C »
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2017, 06:00:12 AM »

Rob,
I was most definitely referring to the posting of images and not to textual posts.
And, I stand by what I said that newbies should not be discouraged from posting images.

With respect to what you may think about others critiquing your images is neither here nor there as far as my argument goes.
I could quote my last post but suffice to say I would expect you to know what the strengths and weaknesses are of that image you posted.

You may believe that photography is a pursuit that completely isolates you, "all about self" as you say but why then would anyone ever post any images ever if that is the case.
I believe that you are entitled to your opinion but you are painting others with the same brush you are applying to yourself, and, I sincerely doubt that everyone else agrees with you on this issue.

I agree that shooting images can sometimes be a solitary exercise and post-processing may also be something done alone but nearly everyone I know ultimately shoots for an audience that is bigger than just themselves.
If anyone, pro or amateur, old hand or newbie wants to share their images with an audience, particularly on a site like this that does, apparently, encourage images to be posted, I ask again, why should anyone try to dissuade them?

As far as the feedback goes, I doubt anyone is "brainwashed" by anything anyone posts. One does not need to be the director of a major art gallery or museum to comment constructively and honestly on an image.
Again, on this site, plenty of feedback and critiquing of images goes on in other sub-forums and not just in the "critique" section.
And frankly I don't think that the choice of sub-forum made by individuals posting images currently matches the original intent of the original sub-forum setup.
And I do not see it as a particular issue either.

As for the quality of the feedback I made a few comments about that and offered some possible ways to remedy the situation.

I do not see your reply negating any of the central thrusts of my first post.

As for you posting images.
Why bother if no one else's opinions count?
I personally think that you should but based on your rant I cannot see why you do.

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 06:28:20 AM by Tony Jay »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17059
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2017, 08:47:35 AM »

Tony,

Rant? If you so desire. But I don't think it is at all; it simply flies in the face of your interests.

I accept that my opinion is neither here nor there, insofar as your opinion is concerned. Which is also fine, but ain't gonna stop me stating mine, trust me on that.

You ask why anyone should discourage newbies posting pictures in a site such as this: I have already stated why a couple of times within this very thread. Why would anyone post images? That's not for me - nor for you - to decide or even, possibly to know: that's the business of the posters concerned. All that I do in this thread is to warn them about the dangers that lurk in listening to the remarks/advice of self-styled or even assumed  'experts' who are, by and large, IMO, anything but.

Now, as for my posting images, and why I do so. Simply this: I have not a whole heap much else to do these days; I enjoy the company of some few posters (they are well aware of who they are) and like to contribute to some of the threads one or two have started. That's not for 'advice', which none of us feels silly or cheeky enough to proffer, but for the fun and pleasure of keeping communications open with those persons. There is enough mutual respect to ride well above that advisory crap.

Thing is, most of us who do stay in touch are not lovers of traditional landcape, by and large, which is why it's nice that LuLa's management is not wearing tunnel vision glasses. Remove the other genres from it, and I think it would shrink into just another little chat show. I think you will see that borne out by the fact that very few - if any - of the guys who post regularly in the 'pro' section, as it pretty much seems to be, are to be found in the 'critiques' sections at all. Do you want to piss them off too by tying the site to landscape? Not that I say that you do, of course, but the dangers would be pretty obvious, I'd imagine.

Rob C

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4343
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2017, 10:24:50 AM »

I find the idea behind the image great, and the learning that comes with the processing steps to achieve the visualization are good. Personally, I don't like the "greyish band" around the image, it makes it a bit flat; especially given the rich blue tones in the rest of the ice.

As for landscape - art - composites, I leave that discussion to all the knowledgeable folks that inhabit LuLa:)

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2017, 06:03:34 PM »

Actually Rob, my post was NOT really to get you to justify your reasons for posting images.
For the right reasons I don't care (and actually , as stated I DO think that you should, in fact, post images).

The mistake that you made was to extrapolate your situation to everyone else, to generalise your view on the world and apply it to others.
YOUR motive for posting images is valid but it does not necessarily match the reasons why others post images.

Your views about how qualified others are to judge images, is to put it bluntly, patronising.
In addition your "brainwashing" comment also demeans the intelligence of those who do post images - in other words they are too stupid to understand a poor analysed critique.

Based on your views, no art gallery in the world should allow public access - the masses are clearly not qualified to view what they clearly cannot understand!

When I post an image I understand that those viewing it, and potentially commenting on it, will represent a spread of expertise and experience as both photographers and judges of the merits of photographic images. I would need to carefully analyse their comments - some would ultimately be valid and others not. Either way, I would encourage the comments because the whole process is a learning one. How does one become a better photographer, and, how does one become a better critic - simple, lots of practice.

That image that you posted was just a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one posts an image that is completely uninterpretable without an extensive explanation about the image and why it was taken, and that explanation is not given, one should not be surprised if comments and analysis are offered that are completely irrelevant and asinine. In the case of the image that you posted, with the explanation, one can now view this image on an emotional level, and ask the question, "Does this image succeed in conveying the emotion that Rob was feeling when he made this image?" Now, because one is asking better questions about the image, perhaps, just perhaps, one can offer a better analysis of whether that image succeeds at this level.

As an aside, I am very much in favour of genres other than landscape and wildlife being represented on this site and forum. I want to see abstract images, architectural and commercial shots, portraits and street photography. For me, this gives me ideas that I can incorporate into what I do. Sometimes the application is merely technical, but more often these days I am impressed by those photographers whose work can elicit an emotional response from me and why the image succeeds at that level.

Maybe you don't care, but I do take the time to view your images. I don't post comments generally (because of your wishes in this regard.) However, it does not stop me forming opinions on the technical, aesthetic, and artistic merits of that work. Sometimes, if an explanation is not provided, it may be impossible to "correctly" judge that image, but still, you may be surprised occasionally by what the neophyte actually does see in those shots!

Tony Jay
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2464
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2017, 10:15:30 PM »

Photography is an artistic medium. Art is self-expression. The moment we think photographs MUST represent reality is the moment we've deluded ourselves. While some photographers make straight photographs, there is no rule that photography must replicate reality. There never has been and never should be.

If someone chooses to use the medium in way different from an image straight from a camera, either through "straight" post-processing or total change to images including composites, then so be it. That's what art is all about. If it's different than the way you perceive the world – that's a good thing. We need our minds stretched periodically. It's not illegal; it's not immoral; it's healthy. If you don't like it, that's fine too. But don't denigrate it because it doesn't fit your notion of what photography is.

No one expects painters to paint reality. There is also a healthy mixed media movement. What the photographer is showing is a brilliant example of photographic compositing. Congratulations on the award, for your creativity and vision.

Should it be labelled as a composite? Yes, that would be appropriate although one might then ask, "How far does one go in post-processing before it must be 'labelled' as something other than 'photography' in the traditional sense (however that may be defined)."

Definitely food for thought and discussion.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2873
Re: Creation of an ice hole
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2017, 11:06:19 PM »

Photography is an artistic medium. Art is self-expression. The moment we think photographs MUST represent reality is the moment we've deluded ourselves. While some photographers make straight photographs, there is no rule that photography must replicate reality. There never has been and never should be.

If someone chooses to use the medium in way different from an image straight from a camera, either through "straight" post-processing or total change to images including composites, then so be it. That's what art is all about. If it's different than the way you perceive the world – that's a good thing. We need our minds stretched periodically. It's not illegal; it's not immoral; it's healthy. If you don't like it, that's fine too. But don't denigrate it because it doesn't fit your notion of what photography is.

No one expects painters to paint reality. There is also a healthy mixed media movement. What the photographer is showing is a brilliant example of photographic compositing. Congratulations on the award, for your creativity and vision.

Should it be labelled as a composite? Yes, that would be appropriate although one might then ask, "How far does one go in post-processing before it must be 'labelled' as something other than 'photography' in the traditional sense (however that may be defined)."

Definitely food for thought and discussion.
I think your thoughts represent a very sensible position Terry.

There is a question that needs to be answered about honesty and integrity.
I personally think that if you are an individual selling your work and all your work is composites, additions and subtractions, etc and it is well known that this is what you do then there isn't an issue.
No-one will feel cheated to discover that this latest image is also a composite.

However, if you have built your reputation and client base on the notion of a somewhat more documentary approach where you could tell a potential customer: "If you had been there with me looking over my shoulder you will recognise what you see in this image", and you have created a composite image and are now trying to pass it off as a representation of reality (I agree with your comments about reality and photography BTW) then I regard that as dishonest.

So, it is all about the expectations of the audience cum customer.

Tony Jay
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up