Stirling Ranges

[Tony Jay]

Are the really poisonous? Or merely venomous? 

Alright smarty-pants you win.

Tony Jay

[Rob C]

Alright smarty-pants you win.

Tony Jay

Tony, as you've undoubtedly noted, all threads reach a level where the morticians should be called in to assist with the disposal of the corpse. It's a humanitarian gesture, at the very least.

It didn't use to happen, back in the old days (you know, as in Golden?), but popularity brings with it decline, giving the lie to the suggestion that the only way is up, but actually, in the case of this particular thread, we might have an exception.

Spellbound by the fascinating repartee, I've negotiated one point of view and the next; ultimately, they all come to different, but essentially the same conclusion: I'm right; you're wrong.

As someone wrote - probably myself - the Internet is indeed the building of Babel.

;-)

Rob C

[Alan Smallbone]

........ I would rather be Michael Fatali's or Jack Dykinga's disciple (pure, unadulterated images of glorious moments in nature). But I do not have the willpower, the stamina, the dedication they have, so I have to resort to making the best of what I occasionally get, i.e., making a silk purse of sow's ears.

Well Fatali was charged with defacing and banned from National Parks because of that incident of lighting wax logs to create a fire under an arch so that the fire would cast a warm glow, that is hardly natural light or something worthy of following. It ruins things for other photographers and caused a lot of damage and clean-up. I would rather see manipulations in photoshop than defacing terrain.

The bottom line is that Eastway never declared his photograph to be depiction of that actual moment, but one that might happen with the right conditions, all he did was manipulate what is there. The masses I am sure are fine with that, and so are most. It is what the photographer is trying to say with their image. Everything else is just opinion.

Alan

[Colorado David]

Alright smarty-pants you win.

Tony Jay

Well call me smarty pants if you wish. My point is that words have meaning.  The snakes are venomous, not poisonous.  It is the same discussion we're having about photography.  If there is no quarter for making adjustments in Photoshop, then the same applies to words.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The snakes are venomous, not poisonous...

Huh? Care to explain?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well Fatali was charged...

Here we go again... like Pavlov's dog.

[Rob C]

Here we go again... like Pavlov's dog.

Yes, but the secret about Pavlov's Pooch is that he was given a sniff of a special scent understood only by other male pooches. Not a lot of people knows this, as Alfie probably said.

Much like the offerings from Chanel et al. it can work wonders! I know; I sniffed too. No 5 was my special treat from when I was so high (indicates something around waist level).

Witches, wonders and magical potions! Who needs trick-cyclists or little blue pills? Oh, mirrors come in useful too.

Rob C

[Colorado David]

Huh? Care to explain?

A poisonous snake could kill you or make you sick if you ate it.  A venomous snake could kill you or make you sick if it bit you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A poisonous snake could kill you or make you sick if you ate it.  A venomous snake could kill you or make you sick if it bit you.

Ah, I see. Like "healthy" food vs. healthful food?

However, not being a native speaker, I often consult a dictionary (made so easy by Apple, just a click away) and here is what I found:

poisonous, adjective = (of an animal or insect) producing poison as a means of attacking enemies or prey : a poisonous snake.

I gather from the above that "as a means of attacking" does not mean curling on your plate, pretending to be dead and cooked, waiting for you to bite?

[Colorado David]

A quick search brought up this article; http://insects.about.com/od/insects101/f/venomous-or-poisonous.htm

Although the article is about insects, it is also true of snakes.  I do some technical writing and so get stuck defending words.  I don't really mean to be a smarty pants.

[AFairley]

Ah, I see. Like "healthy" food vs. healthful food?

However, not being a native speaker, I often consult a dictionary (made so easy by Apple, just a click away) and here is what I found:

poisonous, adjective = (of an animal or insect) producing poison as a means of attacking enemies or prey : a poisonous snake.

....

Which only serves to illustrate how far the decline in proper usage has spread....

[petermfiore]

Not to mention off topic.

Peter F

[Isaac]

... I actually have book reproductions of the photos in front of me. Do you?

No.

That does explain how you refuse to accept what can easily be seen - just don't look :-)

You know, I prefer real books, those with a lot of text in it, not the version for blondes, i.e, with lots of pictures

The Negative, Ansel Adams - lots of text, probably more interesting 30 years ago.

[Isaac]

This might make sense had we not seen the original photograph. Once we did, the illusion that the sun might indeed had poked through the heavy clouds is forever shattered.

One might argue that it does not therefore matter for those who only see the end product, they still might believe its real. And there lies the deception part some are talking about.

Now let's apply that argument consistently --

This might make sense had we not seen the yellow filter #8 "Monolith, The Face of Half Dome" photograph. Once we did, the illusion that the sky might indeed have been that dark is forever shattered.

One might argue that it does not therefore matter for those who only see the end product, they still might believe its real. ...

You're dumping an awful lot of babies out with the bath water :-)

[Tony Jay]

Well call me smarty pants if you wish. My point is that words have meaning.  The snakes are venomous, not poisonous.  It is the same discussion we're having about photography.  If there is no quarter for making adjustments in Photoshop, then the same applies to words....

Well, who would have thought my lighthearted quip would excite so much comment!

Nonetheless, it is cogent to note that venomous and poisonous are definately both valid in the context in which I used it.

I too value the meaning of words and as such my choice of words are carefully chosen.
I do find however that meaning what one is saying and saying what one means is no guarantee that one will not be misunderstood - sometimes wilfully so.

As far as I am concerned the issue of postprocessing techniques has nothing to do with techniques themselves but rather the ethics of their use.
In landscape, and, in my opinion, wildlife and bird, photography one does need to be open and honest about one's approach.
This should not be construed as a criticism of Peter Eastway since here in Australia Peter is well known for his surreal take on landscape imaging, not least because he edits a well known magazine here called "Better Photoshop Techniques" where explanation of exactly the sort of editing techniques demonstrated in the article "The Making of the Stirling Ranges" take pride of place. (BTW if one needs help learning about layers in Ps this publication is not a bad place to start.)

My point about landscape photography (and bird and wildlife photography) is that the average viewer and buyer will consider that image to represent a recognizable reality unless otherwide informed. (Some on this forum strongly disagree with this assertion.)
If the finished image does not represent recognizable reality that again is not a criticism of the postprocessing techniques OR the photographers/artists artistic intent.
It can become an ethical issue if one is passing off landscapes as real places when the finished image bears no recognizable relationship to the original image capture.
There is no ethical issue if one is open and honest about one's approach to postprocessing. I have no ethical concerns, for example, with Alain Briot's approach to landscape image production since he very explicit about how the result was obtained.

On a tack completely unrelated to ethics I feel that Alain's assertion that creating completely manufactured landscapes somehow represent the creation of meaningful photographs (his choice of terminology) to be a highly original oxymoron.
BTW this does not mean that I believe in that most ephemeral of concepts - photorealism (another wonderful oxymoron).
In landscape terms a fantasy is just that - a fantasy. Meaningful it is not since it doesn't represent anything meaningful apart from the fevered imagination of the inventer.

'Nuff said

Tony Jay

[LesPalenik]

My point about landscape photography (and bird and wildlife photography) is that the average viewer and buyer will consider that image to represent a recognizable reality unless otherwide informed.

Lately, I've seen pictures of some local waterfalls, but they look strange to me, somewhat artificial. I recognized some of the rocks, but you don't see the water churning, falling, and spraying in all directions.  It seems just like some kind of white or light gray mist. Some might even call it silky.

I've been trying forever to find that special lighting, but so far, it eludes me. Once I even attempted to shoot one small waterfall at night, but before I could press the shutter, I heard heavy breathing and something rustling behind me, so I quickly retreated and never attempted it again.

Someone told me that you could use Photoshop to get that effect. I tried Motion Blur, but the final print seems like a fake. Woudn't it be nice to have some real waterfall plug-in?
   

[Tony Jay]

We're not going to retread the whole issue of selective focusing, depth of field, and shutter speed again are we?

Regards

Tony Jay

[LesPalenik]

Well, I think that obliterating a whole river and make it into some kind of faded ribbon is a much more serious offense than shining a little bit of soft light on top of the hill.

[Isaac]

My point about landscape photography (and bird and wildlife photography) is that the average viewer and buyer will consider that image to represent a recognizable reality unless otherwide informed. (Some on this forum strongly disagree with this assertion.)

Some just think that assertion and counter-assertion don't make for interesting discussion ;-)

[Tony Jay]

Well, I think that obliterating a whole river and make it into some kind of faded ribbon is a much more serious offense than shining a little bit of soft light on top of the hill.

I don't think we are are in disagreement Les.

Regards

Tony Jay