Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: vjbelle on June 08, 2012, 09:41:39 pm
-
Another GREAT how to series. Working with the various aspects of layers is always very interesting and this lesson especially brought out how to take an average image and make into a great image. Very well done!!
Victor
-
Hmmmmm...
This image has been pushed a long, long way from the original capture, depicting entirely fictitious illumination on the nearest hill. I certainly do my share of dodging & burning to nudge an image where it needs to go to convey a three-dimensional impression on that flat paper surface. But completely invented light seems more like photo-illustration than photography to me. It's no longer a sincere attempt to convey some sense of what it really felt like to be there; it's slipped its reality-based moorings.
I've always felt a bit ambivalent about the extreme moves made by folks like Alain Briot as a part of artistic printing of color photographs. I know this is completely illogical, but drastic tonal and exposure changes strike me as more justifiable in black & white prints, which are already abstracted from reality. Color photos to my mind have at least a bit of an obligation to maintain an honest link to the subject.
Certainly an artist is free to do whatever he/she wishes; art is not a courtroom. The final image is lovely. But I can't help feeling just a little bit misled by it.
Anyone else feel the same way? Or am I a deluded dinosaur? Have at it!
-
The final image is lovely. But I can't help feeling just a little bit misled by it.
I agree with the first sentence. I don't feel misled, I feel elated by looking at the final version.
Peter created a beautiful image, and many thanks for taking us through the process and all the steps.
If I looked only at the original image, granted, there would be no deception, but it wouldn't evoke any strong feelings. Bored would be a better word.
We live in great times. Now we can choose betwen plain photos and beautiful pictures.
I predict, that whether we endorse or deride the creative moves as outlined here and in Alain's essay, it is the future of fine art photography. As others suggested, perhaps we'll need to establish a new nomenclature to categorize the photographs. It takes an artistic vision and technical competency to create pictures such as this one.
-
If the intent is to make ART, there are no rules. The image stands alone. How the image was made has nothing to do with it's value as a work of ART.
Peter
-
... Anyone else feel the same way?...
Yes.
-
What strikes me about this shot of the Sterling Ranges is the utter banality of the hill that has had enhanced lighting applied, presumably to make the scene more captivating.
I there was an old, dilapidated house on the hill, or a mob of kangaroos, or a group of Aboriginals decorated in war paint, holding spears, then there'd be a good reason to draw attention to the hill with that enhanced lighting.
As it is, our attention is drawn to mere grass on a foreground hill.
Nevertheless, the shapes are lovely. I'm reminded of pregnant women. Perhaps there's some symbolic significance here. Some people think Australia is underpopulated. ;D
-
Anyone else feel the same?
Not me.
At a different point in time, a break in cloud cover credibly result in a foreground highlight on the hill.
Knowing that Peter has created that point in time in post isn't a problem for me.
It would be great if like the studio, we could always have perfectly controlled and managed lighting in landscape photography. But I can appreciate that sometimes that control is going to be added in post because it rarely exists how we would absolutely want it at the time of capture.
-
It seems as if some of the issues I raised in my thread may be replayed here.
As always it will be interesting to see how the debate develops.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Nevertheless, the shapes are lovely. I'm reminded of pregnant women. Perhaps there's some symbolic significance here. Some people think Australia is underpopulated. ;D
That's a good point, Ray, and I'm sure that that hillside would be conducive to many an impregnation were it free of spiders and snakes and such. I've never set foot there, and perhaps it is already free of said horrors, but my likelihood of contributing to the population growth is fairly low now - I have to conserve my energies for pushing the post-count... it's so important in the general scheme of things!
;-)
Rob C
P.S. Oh, I forgot: doesn't everybody already do that sort of thing with their pictures? Why else would you have PS, even if a lowly model 6?
-
I think Michael is just trying to wind us up with all this stuff . . .
;) John
-
Actually Rob, Australia is home to some particularly nasty creepy-crawlys including most of the top-twenty most poisonous snakes in the world, several particulary noxious spiders, not to mention the aggressive scorpions.
Nonetheless I still feel safer in places like this in Australia, despite the fact that Australian cities are very safe, as judged internationally.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Ah, Tony, the problem is that, unlike Ireland, Australia didn't have a St Patrick to send all the snakes across the waters - westwards, I'm told, to where they landed from the Staten Island Ferry and adopted blue uniforms. I, personally, am far more familiar with statins than Statens, so my geography might be a little off. However, had Astralia had such a saint, then eastwards would probably have made more sense.
Italy had a similar plague, but managed to export some key players to the same location from whence they, too, went westwards and founded Las Vegas. I wonder if the pink ranches have similar provenance?
All the Scots did was go away in all directions and create metal objects of great size. Oh, and banks.
Rob C
-
A creative use of an image. I have no problem with it although I don’t use it myself.
It illustrates a nice example of what’s being discussed in the other thread. This example of creative use is one of the best forms known to me. The elements within the photo are natural albeit the execution is very expressive.
Mind you, five times (or three) lesser the illumination effect on the rounded hill and this capture is actually ‘sometimes happening’ as the overall base is rather realistic.
I think the processing is well and quite precisely aimed move, including the degree of the pop, in consideration of the audience. Nice scene, highly expressive result of a present countryside.
Thanks for the nice article. I feel like being there. It will have to do with how I feel during my own processing.
Hynek
-
... doesn't everybody already do that sort of thing with their pictures?...
Yes.
-
I have no problem with it, I think the final image works and is well done. I also appreciate the time he took to detail the steps involved, a well done article. Thanks!
Alan
-
I am not really into imaginary landscapes, which is what that images is. This is the choice of the photographer. To call it nature photography would be how you interpret the nature photography. Personally, this is not really nature photography but an artificial construction.
Whatever blows your hair back. (I wonder how a jury would change their vote if they knew the process.)
-
Anyone else feel the same way?
Yes.
-
Yes.
yes x2.
*steve
-
Certainly an artist is free to do whatever he/she wishes; art is not a courtroom. The final image is lovely. But I can't help feeling just a little bit misled by it.
Anyone else feel the same way? Or am I a deluded dinosaur? Have at it!
Yes.
No.
Far from being misled, I feel as if the landscape has been revealed. Someone said something like "I feel like I was there" There can be fewer compliments more valuable to a landscape artist. Photographer or otherwise.
-
Anyone else feel the same way?
Yes, I do.
-
Just asking. Why do some here feel misled by this particular image? Many of the worlds greatest images are very worked over and over until the artist has realized his or her intent.
How is this any different?
Peter F
-
It is not really about this particular image, it is about the whole concept of "very worked over and over" images.
-
Is that not the ART? The worked on image. When is it ok, and and how far is to far?
All that matters is the final art. It stands on its own.
Peter F
-
Just asking. Why do some here feel misled by this particular image? Many of the worlds greatest images are very worked over and over until the artist has realized his or her intent.
How is this any different?
Peter F
When I take a landscape photograph and make a fine print (okay, as close to one as I can get), I'm trying to capture a special moment in time and show viewers that little bit of heaven I saw and felt. Sometimes that can mean stitching multiple files together to make a good panoramic, because that's often how I seem to see things. It can even mean some gentle HDR moves to get past the limitations of photographic capture. But I'm trying to show something that really existed.
To my eye, when compared to the original capture, 'Stirling Ranges' is a manufactured confection. I do understand that raw files always look pretty flat, and Mr. Eastway noted that he exposed low to avoid loss of highlight detail, which exacerbates this. His skill in manipulating the file is terrific, and I really appreciate seeing his working methods and logic. The final image looks great. But the bright warm light on the foreground hill is a complete invention. I regard this as different in kind from optimizing what's there in the subject to overcome the limitations of a reflective print.
Now, I quite understand that this is just my quirk. Artists are completely free to do whatever they want. No doubt most folks will love this image. Alain Briot has persuasively articulated the rationale for doing whatever it takes to create an image that grabs the viewer by the lapels. But to me it's trending toward Peter Lik territory, not meant as a compliment. I've seen way too many romanticized landscapes with impossibly vivid green vegetation and exaggerated dramatic lighting, all created in Photoshop. The English slang term for it is 'twee', a contraction from 'tweet', from a child's rendition of sweet. And I can't help feeling that such extreme manipulations debase the believability of photographs that more honestly depict real moments of magic. That's what I mean by 'misled'.
Stephen Johnson has articulated an alternative landscape photography aesthetic, one that employs the strengths of digital capture and printing to convey as accurately and honestly as possible the beauty that actually exists in the natural world. That's what I'm aiming for. Obviously no one else is bound by my preferences. But I think it's worthwhile articulating what's going on aesthetically.
-
I'd like the slightly recast the question -- the inevitable question -- into developmental terms.
There comes a time in every photographer's development where one realizes for the very first time that images like these, by the most acclaimed photographers, are crafted heavily in the post production process. This comes with several simultaneous realizations.
The novice realizes that the acclaimed photographer (who is no one in specific, and not undeserving, just to be clear) is somewhat banking on maintaining the illusion that they found this scene that was so beautiful due to superhuman dedication. In other words, the novice is /supposed/ to believe that the photographer has the superhuman dedication. So is the buyer, but that's another topic.
Now that the illusion is broken, the novice must decide whether to adopt the convention, or reject it.
The devil comes here: Even if you accept that beautiful landscape photographs are heavily produced, it is hard to forget the disillusionment in coming to realize that there was a kind of deception involved on the part of your "heroes."
I hasten to add that this might be considered a benign deception, and I am not suggesting that photographers be taken to tribunal over it at all. But the small element of deception is hard to forget as a life lesson.
-
You have valid point.
However I would like to add to it.
Although tone and colour to some degree or another have been altered in almost every image that is worth displaying or selling (keeping to landscape and outdoor photography here), it is also true that the principle of GIGO holds very well.
Crap image out of the camera is hard to impossible to turn into anything worthwhile - even if your name is Peter Eastway or even Jeff Schewe.
However, if one has a great composition shot with great light, with appropriate attention to detail to maximise image quality, then one may have something worth working with.
Those issues aside it is also vital to note that no camera perceives light, and tone, and colour, in the way that the human eye does. The retina itself is not a passive recorder of light in the manner of a digital sensor. Massive processing of information goes on in the retina. The retina is just a specialized bit of brain cortex transplanted outside the brain and encapsulated in the globe of the eye. Further processing then occurs in the visual cortex that occupies most of the occipital cortex of the brain.
The key is that vision and visual perception is an intensely subjective process. Most objects that are currently in our field of vision and potentially visible remain unseen because they are not currently important. Should our priorities change then these objects might only then suddenly become explicitly visible despite the fact that they were present the whole time. The same would hold for colours, tones, and textures.
I would say that it would be rare for a photographer to see in an image that he/she had shot exactly what he/she had experienced at the time of shooting even if that individual was a master photographer able to exert expert control over exposure, composition, depth of field etc, because of the limitations of what a digital sensor can capture as well as the subjective perceptions of the photographer.
So, in postprocessing they would attempt to create (recreate?) what they saw and experienced at the time of shooting.
Another individual, even if he/she had been present at the time of the image capture and intensely interested in the scene being shot, might recognize the scene but neither the original RAW capture nor the final processed result would necessarily encapsulate, for them, what they saw and experienced at the time.
So, for most of the people who view the final image, who had no idea what the photographer really saw nor even had the opportunity to form an opinion for themselves because they weren't there to see for themselves, only the final image, as it stands, is there to make any kind of judgement on.
Even knowing that postprocessing may have occurred would be unhelpful in itself - one would either like or dislike the image. One would also decide whether the image represented for oneself any valid artistic aesthetic - again a personal and subjective opinion.
The only way to move forward with an opinion on the image from here would be to know what the ethic of the photographer was with regard to postprocessing practices.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Well, yes and no. ;D
It's true that we all have some subtle differences in our perception of the same subject. That's why a half dozen photographers shooting the same subject at the same time all come up with quite different images. There is a whole literature on the subject of the impact of individual perceptual physiology on art. My favorite is Margaret Livingstone's Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing, but better known is Marmor & Ravin's The Artist's Eyes: Vision and the History of Art, which is a rewrite of their earlier edition. Great stuff. I was also a big fan of Galen Rowel's thoughtful musings on perception; he noted that what we see on the symbolic/meaning level is greatly influenced by our existing 'database' of images and knowledge.
Perceptual differences are also the basis for much of the artistry in representational painting. Most figurative painters aren't simply aiming to produce a 'photographic' reproduction of what's in front of them; they're trying to convey their own quirky perception to the viewer. Which edges look sharp, which look soft, how much shadow detail is visible...there are lots of subjective components that add up to a painter's unique 'look'. But even allowing all that, it's also true that our visual perception has much more in common with that of other folks than it has significant differences. Other than folks with malfunctions like color blindness or cataracts, we all see pretty much the same thing within reasonable limits.
Hence the invented light on that foreground hill in Eastman's image is not just an expression of individual perceptual physiology. It's the deliberate creation of drama that wasn't there. I think it drifts into a different category, more photo-illustration than photography per se. Of course, all's fair in art, love, and war; but at least in my mind I draw a bright line between subtle dodging & burning to overcome the inherent limitations of the medium and to emphasize what's there, and creation of a non-existent lighting effect out of thin air.
As always, YMMV. Life would be boring if we were all the same.
-
The only way to move forward with an opinion on the image from here would be to know what the ethic of the photographer was with regard to postprocessing practices...
Goes to my last point.
In the case of the Peter Eastway article we all knew what the starting point was.
Most viewers/buyers of landscape photographs do not have that luxury of course.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Quite a curious discussion in that it seems to focus on an area in the image that has been lightened, ignoring the much larger amount of darkening. If Peter Eastway had exposed to the right until the foreground hill was the luminance in the final version, and then darkened the rest of the image to match that final version, would people object as much?
Edit: my point being that it is essentially untrue to say the light on the hill is an invention, any more than the darkness on the the background is an invention, it's a question of how you expose. Not being there at the time, I don't know what it looked like, but I have seen similar lighting out of the camera with the use of grad filters. Personally, I don't want to lug them around and stand around setting up multiple filters until the light is where I want it, so I shoot 3 or 4 exposures and blend them afterwards. But then I'm not a “get it in one shot” image maker.
Cheers.
-
Just asking. Why do some here feel misled by this particular image? Many of the worlds greatest images are very worked over and over until the artist has realized his or her intent.
How is this any different?
Peter F
But not all photography is work on like this--simple contrast and color adjustments if that (Robert Glenn Ketchum, Eliot Porter, Raghubir Singh, William Albert Allard, to name a few). Those are the photographers I like. That is the photography I enjoy doing. I like to bring back that wonderful scene and show it. Which brings up a fallacy in your question, maybe the photographer has no more intent than to show what was there. I would also question how many of the worlds greatest photographs have been "worked over."
I really don't care for this type of work where you are creating something that was not there. Personally, I find Uelsman's work more honest because it is obviously a construction. This work seems to be trying to pass itself off as reality, which it clearly is not.
-
Edit: my point being that it is essentially untrue to say the light on the hill is an invention, any more than the darkness on the the background is an invention, it's a question of how you expose.
No matter how you expose, you would never end up with that image with a simple gamma adjustment in levels. You have to go in and selectively lighten and darken different areas to create the lighting.
-
Other than folks with malfunctions like color blindness or cataracts, we all see pretty much the same thing within reasonable limits...
Geoff I like your sources a lot.
That said I think your point that I have quoted is only potentially true: Being able to potentially see much the same thing does not in any way guarantee that the same things will be noticed at all. There is a massive difference between something being present in one's visual field (and thus potentially being seen) and actually being perceived by an individual (much more than just rods and cones reacting to wavelengths and amplitude of light).
BTW this does not at all nullify your point, and opinion, about Peter Eastway's style.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Quite a curious discussion in that it seems to focus on an area in the image that has been lightened, ignoring the much larger amount of darkening. If Peter Eastway had exposed to the right until the foreground hill was the luminance in the final version, and then darkened the rest of the image to match that final version, would people object as much?
I would, although I'm not exactly objecting.
There are a number of things going on here.
1. Fraud or deception. There is a distinct line between deception and creativity, and they really have nothing to do with each other. There are well-known photographers who set up entire scenes, much like movie sets -- the scene itself is totally artificial -- but this is ALWAYS known to the buyer or the viewer. There is no deception involved; quite the contrary. The underlying vibration to *this* discussion seems to be, "Is it all right to represent something as naturalistic if I've moved a plant or a hill, changed the light, added a person, etc." The answer to that, IMHO, is No. Saying that "art is art, and the object stands on its own" is tap-dancing around the central problem of deception. If your creation is so good, why not take credit for it? If you can only sell it, or get acclaim of some sort, by claiming that it's a natural depiction when it isn't, then, you've crossed an ethical line. This has nothing to do with art; this has to do with honesty. IN some ways, among honest people, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place -- *of course* you disclose the genesis of the work; it's automatic. No need for a discussion. But...we're having the discussion, aren't we?
2. There are some implicit arguments about art, which seem to refer especially to painting. But painting and photography are wildly different from one another. With painting, there was never any question among sophisticated viewers -- meaning anybody interested in painting -- about objectivity. All paintings are interpretations. There are no exceptions. Recently, The Online Photographer published a group of fine portraits taken by a man who stood outside fast-moving trains and shot a high speed camera at the train windows. As he noted, he couldn't see the people he was shooting, and they really couldn't see (be aware) of him -- everything was moving too quickly. It occurred to me after reading that story, and looking at the photos, that you could put a camera on a tripod and hook it to a sound-responsive trigger, and get the same shots. There need be no human involvement whatever, in the capture. That's *never* the case with a painting, and it never can be. So, in a sense, photos can be objective in a way painting can never be. The various manipulations of "straight" photography seem to me quite minor compared to anything done in painting -- and not only minor, but well-recognized as manipulations by anyone with even the most cursory acquaintance with photography. Nobody thought the sky was black but the hills were white in Ansel Adams photos; nobody thought the deer were really fuzzy in Caponigro's "Running White Deer." Those things were all recognized as artifacts of the photo process. The difference with Photoshopped works is that sometimes even the experienced viewer *can't* tell if a photo's been manipulated. But the fact that a photo has been manipulated is crucial: you're no longer looking at a more-or-less good representation of an actual scene. In fact, you don't know what you're looking at. You have no guarantees whatever -- not even a guarantee that the creator took any of the photos associated with the work; as far as you could tell, they might all come from stock agencies.
3. In this current latest example, we see sunlight being placed on a non-sunny hillside. Or, maybe it is sunny, but underexposed, and he created the shadow. No way to tell. Did he create the sunshine, or the shadow? But you know what it reminds me of, in either case? The kitschy paintings of Thomas Kinkade, the "Painter of Light," who recently relieved us of his corporeal existence. In fact, I'd suggest that virtually all manipulations like this are automatically kitsch, because they are designed to evoke emotions based on a rather cynical manipulation, just as Kinkade's warm orange fireplace-glows in snow-bound cozy country houses did. What would we think of the present photo if it was entitled, "County Hillside with Artificially Added Warm Glow to Make You Feel Good?"
4. I think photography has a strong tendency toward naturalism, and anyone who messes with that tendency better know precisely what he/she is doing. On the other hand, there's an entire world that welcomes that tendency to naturalism, with the simple difficulty that the world is hard to represent in a way that is both natural and contains the aesthetic qualities needed to make a snapshot into "art." I know it can be done, because I've seen it. But rarely.
-
C'mon you guys! What's all the fuss about? There's no addition or removal of major features in this shot from Peter Eastway, merely a change in light and shade. That's what photography is all about; painting with light.
Those of us who shoot RAW, even with our clothes on, know that we have to make major tonal adjustments to the image in post processing to achieve the effect that inspired us to take the shot in the first instance.
I don't wish to appear to be upstaging anyone, but my examples below demonstrate the problem. My only criticism of Peter Eastway's shot is that he's gone to a lot of trouble to highlight a mere grass-covered hill. Bright parts of an image always tend to attract our attention more. I would prefer my attention to be diverted to something more interesting than a relatively featureless hill.
However, the article has some merit in its exposition of Photoshop technique, so at least we should thank Peter for that. Photoshop is a marvelous editing program with huge potential that many of us, including myself, only scratch the surface of.
The most interesting part of the article for me was the following statement from Peter.
It will be printed to one metre in size and exhibited around Australia and Asia, so I will have to do a little more work refining the masks that curl around the top of my green hill. When you’re making larger prints, any areas of visual displeasure are also much larger and need to be contained!
This is a problem that I frequently encounter, and I'm not sure what is the most effective way of solving the problem. My image below also demonstrates this problem along that diagonal line of sharply changing contrast, between the darker foliage and the brighter sky/mountains.
This is a work in progress, of course. Was that small village in the lower right coner really illuminated by the rising sun? I can't remember for certain. All I can say is that it should be, and I want it to be.
Was that orange glow on the snow-capped peak of Machapuchare, the sacred mountain where the God Shiva resides, the God who will destroy any mortal who attempts to invade his residence, really that orange? The RAW image implies that it wasn't. Yet that's how I remember it. A bit of exaggeration is okay in my books.
If anyone knows a good technique of avoiding those 'overhang' conditions that so often occur between sharply contrasting parts of an image, please pass on the technique.
Cheers!
-
Peter Eastway needs to see much, much more of Australia!
What's this , "not noted for its rugged mountain ranges"?!
Every Australian child is taught the iconic poem, "My Country", by Dorothea McKellar. Read carefully (second stanza), Peter:
" I love a sunburnt country
A land of sweeping plains
OF RAGGED MOUNTAIN RANGES
Of droughts and flooding rains."
A trip to the Flinders Ranges in SA, or the Western Arthurs in Tas., or the Musgrave Ranges in SA, etc, etc, etc,...far too many to list, should be on Peter's schedule.
-
Geoff Wittig, you are not alone.
I dodge and burn, mask and unmask, to my heart's (and eye's) content.
However, the risk (as I see it) is the immediate contradiction the brain picks up when viewing Peter's scene.
I think it starts where I become aware of the main source of light, its strength, colour and direction.
Then I think, well how come the foreground hill is so warmly bright (is it radioactive..)...it can't be coming from the sunlight...?
That paradox of physics then becomes more the feature than the lovely vista. In other words, it's not subtle or subliminal.
-
Geoff Wittig, you are not alone.
I dodge and burn, mask and unmask, to my heart's (and eye's) content.
However, the risk (as I see it) is the immediate contradiction the brain picks up when viewing Peter's scene.
I think it starts where I become aware of the main source of light, its strength, colour and direction.
Then I think, well how come the foreground hill is so warmly bright (is it radioactive..)...it can't be coming from the sunlight...?
That paradox of physics then becomes more the feature than the lovely vista. In other words, it's not subtle or subliminal.
Exactly! Well put! One needs at least a hint of sun rays descending upon the hill.
-
I hadn't realised that landscape photographers were working primarily to impress other ARAT snappers; I'd always imagined that that kind of peer pressure was the driving motivation for us fashion and girls guys. What a disappointment to learn that we were not alone and, as bad, that the motivational forces behind ARAT are no the more pure. Where the true love of nature, of the creation around us... oh those friggin' tripods of clay!
A sad day indeed.
;-( and ;-)
Rob C
-
I love a sunburnt country
A land of sweeping plains
OF RAGGED MOUNTAIN RANGES
"Sweeping plains".. we have those in abundance.. but "Ragged Mountain Ranges"...I have always wondered how this made it into our colloquialisms. We have nada in the way of ragged mountain ranges by world standards. I have lived and travelled throughout Australia for nearly 40 years (born and bred aussie) and in short our mountains suck by world standards. I've travelled many places in the world and I would say nearly every one of them has mountains and 'ragged mountain ranges' to put us to shame. Ce la vie.
In terms of Eastways shot - what strikes me about it the most is that its an 'unusual Australian landscape'. Unusual (as he points out) in that its a series of 'hills' not commonly seen in Australia. Its very rare to find a scene like this in Australia. Normally the hills would be dotted with gum trees.
In terms of being 'manufactured' - Yes. But, so what?
I saw this shot in print at the Medium Format Australian Photography awards in Melbourne and remarked to my friend at the time that the print was exceptional. The jpeg does not do it justice. It truly doesn't.
IMO Peter is to be commended for having the vision to see the finished product after gathering the 'raw' ingredients (pun well and truly intended). ;D
I've often found Peters work highly polarising. Either a hit out of the park, or a complete train wreck. This is one of the few that strikes a middle ground for me. I appreciate the scene, composition and art that constructed this image in post. Ultimately however (even after viewing the print) it leaves me a little cold and wanting. I find my eye has nowhere to settle and that I am dissatisfied with the hill in the foreground alone.
-
JOSH-H, no doubt the print would look better. And I agree with you about the composition.
However, after visiting many of our arid mountain ranges, as well as the more temperate locations, there are indeed many "ragged" examples. Dorothea McK. was not mistaken or deluded. (For those unfamiliar, Australia is almost the same area as the US.)
I mentioned the Musgrave Ranges in South Australia because of the great paintings Sir Hans Heysen made in that area. They are spectacular, as are the more southerly Flinders Ranges.
Sure, we have no 'Himalayas', but as in Scotland, often the relatively low mountains start from a near sea-level base and rise to their height over a small lateral distance. Who would not be impressed by the Grampians of Victoria, or those Western Arthurs in Tasmania?
I have seen the Himalayas, the Rockies and a host of other ranges in between, but ours add another unique perspective.
And remember, Australia has a greater area of snow cover than Switzerland, albeit at lower altitude.
And no, whoever it was, you won't get bitten by a snake or spider! Unless you really want to. :-)
-
1. Fraud or deception. There is a distinct line between deception and creativity, and they really have nothing to do with each other. There are well-known photographers who set up entire scenes, much like movie sets -- the scene itself is totally artificial -- but this is ALWAYS known to the buyer or the viewer. There is no deception involved; quite the contrary.
How about the W. Eugene Smith's photo essays published in Life: "Spanish Village" with several completely staged and rehearsed shots*. "Man of Mercy" (Dr Schweitzer) with silhouettes of hand and tools** added to photographs in the darkroom. "Nurse midwife" where the pictures were so manipulated with dodging and selective lightening that the dark skinned subjects looked almost caucasian (straight prints have been circulating also, they look totally different). It was all offered as "truth".
*) http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOFDN5JRE&CT=Search&DT=Image (Villagers return..., Wake of Juan...)
**) http://www.magnumphotos.com/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.StoryDetail_VPage&pid=2TYRYDDWI3V8 photo 36
***) http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=ViewBox_VPage&VBID=2K1HZOFDN5W6Y&IT=ZoomImage01_VForm&IID=2S5RYDY6CTG3&PN=27&CT=Search
-
From Petrus
How about the W. Eugene Smith's photo essays published in Life: "Spanish Village" with several completely staged and rehearsed shots*. "Man of Mercy" (Dr Schweitzer) with silhouettes of hand and tools** added to photographs in the darkroom. "Nurse midwife" where the pictures were so manipulated with dodging and selective lightening that the dark skinned subjects looked almost caucasian (straight prints have been circulating also, they look totally different). It was all offered as "truth".
Now we are talking!!!!!!!!!
Peter F
www.peterfiore.com
-
A very interesting debate with thoughtful replies. The feeling I am getting is that there really are no rules, however, some people are more comfortable believing there are (or should be).
For what it's worth, I've always categorised myself as someone nearer the "realistic" end of the spectrum i.e. I've always believed that I prefer "natural" looking images to "CGI" style images (despite being entirely happy with even heavy use of the "standard" image manipulation techniques). However, looking at this image has made me question that assumption, as has reading the replies. There are some nifty justifications in this thread for differing points of view and I have found I am sympathetic to all of them! This has prompted a bit of a re-evaluation of my position which I have now recast as "says he prefers natural looking images but will accept just about anything as long as it looks good, and not too unpleasantly "faked".
The spectrum of what constitutes "fakedness" has expanded somewhat for me as a result of this article (but it doesn't include Jerry Uelsmann nor any of the those endless clever, but trite stock studio photographers who create pictures of triangular prisms standing on pools of water with cupped hands etc). I like this photo, despite its post processing origins. I think if I have learned anything about my tastes from this, it's that one can fondly imagine one has principles, then discover unexpectedly that one sometimes one has to admit to bending or ignoring them on occasions in order to accommodate unexpected facts such as finding oneself liking something one is not supposed to...
Thanks to everyone for their useful thoughts.
D
-
In terms of being 'manufactured' - Yes. But, so what?
You really don't understand? I am interested in and amazed by the variation in the natural world. This is simply an imaginary landscape, but appears to try to pass itself off as something real. That is simply commercial photography. If I want fantasy, I will watch a Hollywood movie; it is not the reason I view nature or documentary photography. However, if you don't care, it will be a great image.
-
All pictures in all forms whether painted, photographed or moving are Illusions. That's the magic. That's the ART!
Peter F
-
I'm somehat amused to note that not one of the purists in this thread has yet offered a complaint about photographic portraits that make use of studio lighting. It seems to me that use of studio lighting, or any sort of artificial lighting at all, is certainly comparable to what Eastway has done here.
IMHO, if you aren't claiming to do journalism or scientific photography, any technique you use that gives you the effect you want is OK, if it works.
Edward Weston once said something to the effect that he would "print on a doormat" if it gave him what he wanted.
-
Ansel Adams Would be proud of such a photograph.
Clearing Winter Storm gives away nothing to the process that we see described here. If one were to follow Adams' procedure from image capture, development process of the negative, contact printing to determine the best print exposure, and all the dodging and burning that is done to achieve his vision... We cannot criticize the Stirling Ranges photograph.
With those familiar with the Photoshop workflow this is not a highly manipulated photograph. It is a single capture, with nothing added to enhance the photo.The convoluted workflow of Ps makes it seem more than it is.
I find that a photo such as this is much easier at this time to use LR4 with all its controls to bring about the final vision. It is a much more efficient workflow than PS, and as a workflow it would feel as if you are not doing so much to the image.
Viewing the raw capture shown shows that all the details are there. Tonal controls, contast, color controls, etc. are tools that have been used by photographers for over 100 years.
Ye all off your soapbox now.
-
... I've always categorised myself as someone nearer the "realistic" end of the spectrum i.e. I've always believed that I prefer "natural" looking images to "CGI" style images (despite being entirely happy with even heavy use of the "standard" image manipulation techniques)... "says he prefers natural looking images but will accept just about anything as long as it looks good, and not too unpleasantly "faked"...
+1
-
All pictures in all forms whether painted, photographed or moving are Illusions. That's the magic. That's the ART!
Peter F
But that does not mean some are intended to represent something closely.
-
Thanks to the author for the excellent tutorial!
Outstanding results can be nudged from a lot of works for those who are willing to try.
-
I'm somehat amused to note that not one of the purists in this thread has yet offered a complaint about photographic portraits that make use of studio lighting. It seems to me that use of studio lighting, or any sort of artificial lighting at all, is certainly comparable to what Eastway has done here.
IMHO, if you aren't claiming to do journalism or scientific photography, any technique you use that gives you the effect you want is OK, if it works.
Edward Weston once said something to the effect that he would "print on a doormat" if it gave him what he wanted.
But you recognize the studio lighting and so the studio lighting is the reality. Eastway is not using a studio. If Weston did say that, I think you are quoting him out of context.
-
Ansel Adams Would be proud of such a photograph.
Clearing Winter Storm gives away nothing to the process that we see described here. If one were to follow Adams' procedure from image capture, development process of the negative, contact printing to determine the best print exposure, and all the dodging and burning that is done to achieve his vision... We cannot criticize the Stirling Ranges photograph.
If Adams did not alter the relationships to create something that was not there, than that is not what Eastway did. Besides, Adams or any specific photographer is not the point. You don't justify a crime because someone famous did it.
With those familiar with the Photoshop workflow this is not a highly manipulated photograph. It is a single capture, with nothing added to enhance the photo.The convoluted workflow of Ps makes it seem more than it is.
But that light was not there. The lighting effect was added. And you are right, the workflow made it more than it is. Which is what I think people don't like about it. It is not what it is.
-
Peter's final image with the spotlight like illumination of the hillock is entirely believable. See this -
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1121631
-
Peter's final image with the spotlight like illumination of the hillock is entirely believable. See this -
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1121631
???? How does spotlight illumination happen on an overcast day in Eastway's image? Even if the spot was real, what happened to the grass contrast--it should be much higher. The image you linked to is not even believable, but at least there is the right atmospheric conditions to get spots of light. Even my wife, who is not a photographer, thought Eastway's photo was unreal and I just asked what she thought and that was her first comment.
There is nothing wrong with making imaginary landscapes. It just does not blow my hair back.
-
???? How does spotlight illumination happen on an overcast day in Eastway's image?
It happens if there is a 'hole' in the clouds. If you have been to Iceland, this is not at all uncommon.
Ps: in fact, it can only happen on an overcast day. How will you get a spotlight on a sunny day?
-
You don't justify a crime because someone famous did it.
Really....a crime?
Maybe Peter should be looking out for the Photo Police in case they visit.....oh hang on, there aren't any, which I think is also at the heart of this. Each to their own as there are no laws in this, but common sense might suggest that extremes either way are just a little bit silly.
-
It happens if there is a 'hole' in the clouds. If you have been to Iceland, this is not at all uncommon.
Ps: in fact, it can only happen on an overcast day. How will you get a spotlight on a sunny day?
But the spot is clearly not from an opening in the clouds. The day looks evenly overcast, which does not allow for spots of light--I have been outdoors long enough to know that. You get spots of lights when storms break up. Usually under low humidity conditions, which is not what the Eastway image shows. Sorry, there is more to faking images than just adding elements. Besides, this is not Iceland.
-
You don't justify a crime because someone famous did it.
Hyperbole! I know her well :-)
If Adams did not alter the relationships to create something that was not there, than that is not what Eastway did. Besides, Adams or any specific photographer is not the point.
Whether or not Adams made similar alterations provides a broader perspective on plausible visual effects, than the seemingly novel, computer-based manipulations described in the article --
Many consider my photographs to be in the "realistic" category. Actually, what reality they have is in their optical-image accuracy; their values are definitely "departures from reality." The viewer may accept them as realistic because the visual effect may be plausible, but if it were possible to make direct visual comparison with the subjects, the differences would be startling
-
Really....a crime?
Maybe Peter should be looking out for the Photo Police in case they visit.....oh hang on, there aren't any, which I think is also at the heart of this. Each to their own as there are no laws in this, but at least common sense would suggest that silly extremes either way are just well...silly.
I am not say the image is a crime. I am simply saying one act is not justified because you can find an example of it being done by a famous person.
-
Hyperbole! I know her well :-)
Whether or not Adams made similar alterations provides a broader perspective on plausible visual effects, than the seemingly novel, computer-based manipulations described in the article --
Personally, I don't like Adams work. He is really not the standard here. Nor should be set up as such. Besides, quoting famous photographers is not really evidence of anything.
-
I am simply saying one act is not justified because you can find an example of it being done by a famous person.
No, it's justified whether or not anyone else has done it before.
You can have a preference for realism, or a preference for pictorialism, or a preference for impressionism, etc. But so what? It's just a preference and no better or worse than someone else's.
-
Personally, I don't like Adams work. He is really not the standard here. Nor should be set up as such.
Ansel Adams' work was given as an example of well known, widely accepted, landscape photography -- not as the standard. (It's just extra fun that Group f/64 is so often the example of "straight" photography.)
Besides, quoting famous photographers is not really evidence of anything.
What Ansel Adams said about his own work really is evidence of what Ansel Adams thought about his own work!
-
I think if I have learned anything about my tastes from this, it's that one can fondly imagine one has principles, then discover unexpectedly that one sometimes one has to admit to bending or ignoring them on occasions in order to accommodate unexpected facts such as finding oneself liking something one is not supposed to...
My favourite example (which I mention too often) is 1857 Gustave Le Gray printing landscapes with the sky of his choice, photographed elsewhere -- there's something about the way that disrupts my preconceived notions of what landscape photography has been, that I find hilarious :-)
(afaik Others at the time made separate exposures for sea and sky, at the same location for technical reasons, but Le Gray went further.)
-
Will you guys stop with this AA nonsense, please? AA is totally irrelevant for this debate, being a b&w photographer, with a higher abstraction from reality built-in. It is much easier for a viewer to accept drastic changes in a b&w photograph, especially the fine art type (as opposed to documentary).
But, if you insist, I do not recall a single case of AA manipulation that resulted in creating something that was not there. Yes, he dodged and burned extensively, but only to enhance what was there, not to create what was not (like a fake light from a non-existing opening in the clouds).
This is not to say that I am against what Peter Eastway does. I actually consider myself his disciple, and have posted here in the past several examples of what I called my homage to him. I often do what he does. That is what I consider fine art photography to be. However, it does not mean I am not, at the same time, ambivalent about it. I realize we are crossing that fine line in the sand between photography and painting, and I am not always comfortable with it. 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.
-
But, if you insist, I do not recall a single case of AA manipulation that resulted in creating something that was not there.
Monolith, The Face of Half Dome. ... I realized after exposing that the image would not express the particular mood of overwhelming grandeur the scene evoked. I visualized a dark sky, deeper shadows, and a crisp horizon in the distance.
With my one remaining plate I used the #29 dark red filter, achieving very much the effect I wanted.
Yes, the sky was there. Yes, some shadows were there. Yes, there was a horizon in the distance.
No, not that dark dark sky. No, not those additional shadows. No, not that high contrast horizon line.
-
Yes, the sky was there. Yes, some shadows were there. Yes, there was a horizon in the distance.
No, not that dark dark sky. No, not those additional shadows. No, not that high contrast horizon line.
Sorry, the hairsplitter-in-chief, there were no additional shadows, just enhanced existing ones. AA wanted "deeper" shadows, not to add non-existing ones.
-
What I take from the latest round here is that
( 1 ) plausibility or believability is what may be most important to many viewers (of photographs), and
( 2 ) that quality is harder to achieve in color photography than it is in B&W.
I can accept that.
-
Sorry, the hairsplitter-in-chief, there were no additional shadows, just enhanced existing ones. AA wanted "deeper" shadows, not to add non-existing ones.
Does that mean you agree about the sky and horizon? :-)
You seem to be suggesting that using a different filter only made shadows darker but didn't push mid-tones into shadow? I'm just looking at a side-by-side book reproduction of the photos taken using different filters - so what do I know!
I can say that where there are no rock face highlights in print A, there definitely are rock face highlights in print B -- the effect I wanted yada yada.
-
But the spot is clearly not from an opening in the clouds. The day looks evenly overcast, which does not allow for spots of light--I have been outdoors long enough to know that. You get spots of lights when storms break up. Usually under low humidity conditions, which is not what the Eastway image shows. Sorry, there is more to faking images than just adding elements. Besides, this is not Iceland.
Beg to differ on this. Even with a heavy, mostly even overcast sky it's not unusual for the sun to poke through and light up a relatively small area. If you're in position you can watch it move across the land and wait for it to light up a hillside, farmstead or whatever is in it's path. This on the northern prairies, not Iceland.
-
Does that mean you agree about the sky and horizon? :-)
No, it simply means I am not inclined to split further every hair you do ;)
... You seem to be suggesting that using a different filter only made shadows darker but didn't push mid-tones into shadow?...
We are talking about different definitions of "shadow". You seem to have in mind Lighttroom's division of the tone curve into shadows-darks-lights-highlights, while I have in mind the natural phenomenon, i.e., "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface : trees cast long shadows."
-
We are talking about different definitions of "shadow".
I think we may be talking from different perspectives - I actually have book reproductions of the photos in front of me. Do you?
-
What I take from the latest round here is that
( 1 ) plausibility or believability is what may be most important to many viewers (of photographs), and
( 2 ) that quality is harder to achieve in color photography than it is in B&W.
And there's nothing new or novel or radical about this --
My basic philosophy is: anything is all right in photography if you get away with it. I have no objections if somebody wants to make prints standing on his head; it's perfectly all right. I don't mind printing in clouds if they can fool me; I accept those clouds.
[Paul Strand] had no interest in color, ... "It's a dye," he said. "It has no body or texture or density, as paint does. So far, it doesn't do anything but add an uncontrollable element to a medium that's hard enough to control anyway."
-
Beg to differ on this. Even with a heavy, mostly even overcast sky it's not unusual for the sun to poke through and light up a relatively small area. If you're in position you can watch it move across the land and wait for it to light up a hillside, farmstead or whatever is in it's path. This on the northern prairies, not Iceland.
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.
That is the same type of argument I mentioned before, i.e., why is a perfect Picasso forgery valued in millions while it is believed it is real, and then instantaneously drops to practically zero the moment it is proven fake.
-
... I actually have book reproductions of the photos in front of me. Do you?
No.
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 ;D
But good for you, I am glad you are so well-read and eager to demonstrate it on every occasion. You are well on your way to become our Quote Generator of the Year.
-
My personal preference is for a photograph that shows the scene that was there. It's easy enough to take a ho-hum image and manipulate it into something visually interesting, but a whole different thing to find the actual naturally occurring magnificence of the world and capture that. I remember visiting Galen Rowen's gallery, the walls lined with amazing dye transfers. Here and there in the galley were sheets of Kodachrome outtakes to show that the colors in the prints had not been achieved by photomanipulation in the darkroom. To me, that's the real deal. Photoillustration has its place, I guess but it's not my cup of tea.
-
Here and there in the galley were sheets of Kodachrome outtakes to show that the colors in the prints had not been achieved by photomanipulation in the darkroom. To me, that's the real deal. Photoillustration has its place, I guess but it's not my cup of tea.
Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type, in conjunction with a specific type of chemical development of the exposed film.
As I recall, the colors of Velvia, Kodachrome, and Ektachrome were all quite significantly different. Which one preferred was a matter of taste, but none of them could be said to be totally accurate.
-
I remember an article years ago, before digital capture was common, that exclaimed that if you were a real photographer who cared about the reality of your representations, you would not shoot Velvia. It seems that nothing has changed in the intervening years.
-
. . .including most of the top-twenty most poisonous snakes in the world . . .
Are the really poisonous? Or merely venomous? ;D
-
Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type...
Oh, Ray, please!
-
Surely the colors have been pre-manipulated during the design and manufacture of the film type, in conjunction with a specific type of chemical development of the exposed film.
Long time ago, I bought at a great discount a few hundred rolls of Fuji RMS 220 film. The price was good, but the film came with a very deep blue cast. I did a lot of practising with that film.
Now, I don't know whether the film was premanipulated or if it all came from some defective run, but I hated that blue cast.
Nevertheless, quite a few customers complemented me that I successfully captured the typical dark blue color of their favourite lake. I don't even want to think what would they say if I had fixed that blue cast.
-
Are the really poisonous? Or merely venomous?
Alright smarty-pants you win.
Tony Jay
-
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
-
........ 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
-
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.
-
... The snakes are venomous, not poisonous...
Huh? Care to explain?
-
Well Fatali was charged...
Here we go again... like Pavlov's dog.
-
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
-
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.
-
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? ;)
-
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.
-
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....
-
Not to mention off topic.
Peter F
-
... 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 ;D
The Negative, Ansel Adams (http://www.anseladams.org/the-negativehc-book-9.html) - lots of text, probably more interesting 30 years ago.
-
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 :-)
-
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
-
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?
-
We're not going to retread the whole issue of selective focusing, depth of field, and shutter speed again are we?
Regards
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.
-
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 ;-)
-
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
-
Some just think that assertion and counter-assertion don't make for interesting discussion ;-)
Particularly if some of those assertions are silly!
-
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.
We seem to be confusing two issues here; the creation of a landscape which has been significantly altered in shape and form so that it is no longer recognisable (the issue raised in the other thread "Creating Meaningful Photographs"); and the processing of an image in a manner which enhances the light or shade, and/or removes a certain degree of distracting detail in order to make the image more appealing.
An analogy might be the difference between a woman wearing make-up, and a woman wearing a mask; for example, an old lady wearing the mask of a young lady as opposed to smoothing out her wrinkles with some treatment. In the situation of wearing the mask, the person will likely be unrecognisable, and that seems to be your main objection, Tony.
Of course, it might be the case that you also believe that women in general should not wear make-up, especially if they are having their photo taken, because that would constitute some unethical form of deception, unless they were to wear a sign emblazened on their clothes or T-shirt, "I am wearing make-up". But I doubt you are that unreasonable, Tony. ;D
-
Thanks to everyone for a great read - I wish I had been involved a little earlier! Some gems in there, both serious and funny - really enjoyed it!
I think the comments about nature and wildlife photography are valid - people (the general public) do have an expectation that a dog has four legs, not six and that the photo represents reality.
However, I'm not sure if landscape photography is seen quite so simply.
From my perspective, from what I have learnt and seen over the years (my education), landscape photography doesn't fall into the 'straight' genre. Before some readers object, I readily agree that their perspective may be that landscapes should be treated as 'natural'. All I'm saying is that my background has shown landscapes to include interpretative work (which I enjoy), and not be limited to only 'literal' representations (which I also enjoy!).
However, photography is a language. Like English, we can use it to write fiction or non-fiction. Some people just like reading fiction, others can't stand it! I guess interpretative and literal landscape photography is similar in this way.
(PS There was a question with the warm light on the mountains behind matching the cooler light on the foreground - perhaps 'fudging' the colour of the light on the foreground moutain so it's not so green, but a little orange too, will hide the transition a little better. Assuming you're allowed to do this fakery, of course!)
-
We seem to be confusing two issues here...
Ray I am not confusing any issues to do with either thread.
All the issues I raised are pertinent.
However, as I allude to at the beginning of my last post many people are confusing what I am saying.
In reality most of the issues pertaining to both threads that have been raised are two sides of the same coin even if the two threads are based on two different articles: one by Alain, and one by Peter.
To some people what these two advocate are merely a matter of degree, to some one approach is acceptable and the other not, and to some neither is acceptable.
Probably the biggest issue, for me personally, is the fact that some individuals are trying to construct a box around me that fits their preconceptions rather than what I am expressing.
Peter Eastway in his recent post acknowledges that there are differences in artistic intent and approach by the photographer/artist as well as differences in expectation by buyers and viewers.
The only way to deal honestly and ethically with these issues is, well, to be honest and ethical about one's approach to postprocessing.
The ethics of this do not extend to every aspect of photography - in many genres the finished article is obviously not any kind of reality and because of this the image can be evaluated appropriately because everyone knows and understands and expects all sorts of manipulations.
Landscape and nature photography is different - a representation of reality is expected. Now, whether everyone in the universe expects this or only some, perhaps most, is neither here nor there. There is likely a very broad range of views on this among our viewers and buyers (just look at the range of views expressed by photographers on this forum).
Some photographers wish to put their head in the sand on this issue (if I have understood them correctly - I may be wrong, especially considering how many are appearing to consistently misunderstand what I consider plain language - if I have misunderstood anyone please accept my apologies).
All we need to do is tell our viewers and buyers what we are doing to our landscape and nature images and let them make up their own minds about whether our work has any value to them once they are informed.
I will repeat this too - I believe it is fraudulent to pass off landscape and nature images as possesing recognizable reality when that is not true.
Again, this issue is not about techniques but about personal ethics.
Some posts have flippantly and arrogantly made reference to some sort of "reality policing" or similar, but to repeat, this is nothing about any kind of enforcement, but, it is about personal ethics.
Nothing I have written challenges the ethics of either Alain nor Peter.
I do have very different views on their artistic approach though (personal opinion coming):
All of Peter's work that I have seen although having a surreal look is actually an edit of a real image. If one had been present when he shot the image it would still be a recognizable as the finished product (refer to his article if you like).
Alain's work can be different - he freely admits to editing in and out major aspects of the scene in his images.
In my humble opinion, in the context of nature and landscape photography, the entire charm and allure, power and beauty of the image it is that it does represent recognizable reality. I will not be alone in my view here.
Again, please do not equate this view with some form of misguided photorealism.
So, could I find myself an owner of some of Peter's work? Yes, possibly.
Could I find myself an owner of Alains work? Most assuredly not if I knew the mountain range had been duplicated and the river that is supposed to be in the valley below had been edited out and replaced with something else. No matter how pretty the resulting image, to me, it is truly a meaningless image.
Please do not confuse my personal views of the work of these two individuals, as examples, with aspects of the ethics of how we present landscape and nature photography to our viewers and buyers.
Ray, I trust that nothing that I have said, by way of clarification, could be deemed to be unreasonable.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Tony
What would your view be of the work of Eddie Ephraums? His landscape work is so totally processed it bears no resemblance to the original capture. Dark, moody, broody, contrasty, grainy, heavily toned and not colour. He doesn't pretend it does as you can buy his books explaining how he does it but I wouldn't consider calling his work "fantasy" as to my eyes it looks great and represents a personal interpretation or impression. Seems valid to me. The acid test as ever is really whether you like the result.
Example: (http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/2/1944.jpg)
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
-
Wonderful image - no issue at all.
Tony Jay
-
And I agree - I love Eddie's work and he was instrumental in the style I have today. Full kudos to Eddie!
-
... What would your view be of the work of Eddie Ephraums? His landscape work is so totally processed it bears no resemblance to the original capture. Dark, moody, broody, contrasty, grainy, heavily toned and not colour...
Beautiful! I love it! No problem at all. Why? Because it is b&w, and as mentioned several times already in the thread, b&w has a built-in a higher degree of abstraction, thus is easier accepted as fine art.
Now, where I would possibly have a problem, and I think this debate in the thread is about it, is in case like this:
-
Particularly if some of those assertions are silly!
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? :-)
-
Eddie's photo is clearly about the mood and not about what the place may have looked like. That works perfectly for me.
-
I think the comments about nature and wildlife photography are valid - people (the general public) do have an expectation that a dog has four legs, not six and that the photo represents reality.
Do people (us as-well-as them, the general public) have different expectations about deer than dogs? (Six-Legged Deer (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,388563,00.html), Six-Legged Puppy (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2005/6/19/nation/11262103&sec=nation))
Funny-thing, reality ;-)
Whether it's the text we read, the words we hear on TV and radio, or the photographs and video we see -- trust and, if it matters, verify.
-
What would your view be of the work of Eddie Ephraums? His landscape work is so totally processed it bears no resemblance to the original capture. Dark, moody, broody, contrasty, grainy, heavily toned and not colour. He doesn't pretend it does as you can buy his books explaining how he does it but I wouldn't consider calling his work "fantasy" as to my eyes it looks great and represents a personal interpretation or impression. Seems valid to me. The acid test as ever is really whether you like the result.
Example: (http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/2/1944.jpg)
I guess one could say that the acid test is whether one likes the result. I have to honestly report that I don't particularly like the above example from Eddie Ephraums, but I admit that it's sometimes difficult to get a correct impression from a significantly scaled down version of an image, or thumbnail, which may also exhibit altered tonality producing an impression which is quite different from viewing the large print.
If I were to see a large print in a gallery, I might change my mind, but as it is, this image looks grainy and unsharp, with blocked-up shadows. I feel that any inherent beauty in the scene that might make it worthwhile, such as color and texture and tone in the rocks, grass and stream, has been thrown away.
Nevertheless, I don't want to appear too dismissive. I can appreciate that certain people who may be high on drugs a lot of the time, may need something to bring them down. This photo by Eddie Ephraums might serve the purpose.
On the other hand, there is the added danger, when such people are feeling low, that the sight of this image might cause them to feel so depressed they go back on the drugs to get high again. ;D
-
Couldn't agree more with you, Ray
From the recently posted pictures, I liked best Alain's Moonrise at the Whitesands. I just like pretty, colorful and cheerful images.
Eddie's picture reminds me too much of Greece. Allegorically speaking. Not that there is anything wrong with pictures from Greece (as long as they are in color).
My second choice would be Peter Eastway's hill, followed closely by the kangoroo in Nepal, looking longingly at the prettily dressed barefoot dancer. There is just something about them mountains.
-
Couldn't agree more with you, Ray
From the recently posted pictures, I liked best Alain's Moonrise at the Whitesands. I just like pretty, colorful and cheerful images.
Eddie's picture reminds me too much of Greece. Allegorically speaking. Not that there is anything wrong with pictures from Greece (as long as they are in color).
My second choice would be Peter Eastway's hill, followed closely by the kangoroo in Nepal, looking longingly at the prettily dressed barefoot dancer. There is just something about them mountains.
I also prefer Peter Eastway's hill to Edie Ephraums' dark and moody creation, but I'm not too happy with the blank bareness of the hill. I think a few kangaroos might help, or at least one.
As for my kangaroo shot in Nepal on the other thread, the kangaroo isn't really looking at the barefoot dancer, but he is looking rather wistfully at me as though to ask how I came across such a pretty kangaroo girl, and that he wished he had been there first.
One of the side effects of carrying two cameras when trekking, is that one sometimes becomes the centre of attention, as I am in the following shot that I took as I turned a bend on the track and came across three kangaroos and three trekkers.
You can imagine my surprise. The nearest kangaroo is carrying a joey in her pouch. I'm not sure if she's scratching her back because of a flea, or is suffering back problems as a result of the weight of the joey. Whatever, you can see that my appearance around the bend has startled all kangaroos whose attention is suddenly directed at me, including the guy in the red shirt who seems to find me more interesting than a kangaroo.
(Hope no-one thinks I'm hijacking the thread. Just having a bit of fun ;D )
For the benefit of those who wish to be pedantic, the creatures in this shot are not actually kangaroos but wallabies.
-
I also prefer Peter Eastway's hill to Edie Ephraums' dark and moody creation, but I'm not too happy with the blank bareness of the hill. I think a few kangaroos might help, or at least one.
As for my kangaroo shot in Nepal on the other thread, the kangaroo isn't really looking at the barefoot dancer, but he is looking rather wistfully at me as though to ask how I came across such a pretty kangaroo girl, and that he wished he had been there first.
One of the side effects of carrying two cameras when trekking, is that one sometimes becomes the centre of attention, as I am in the following shot that I took as I turned a bend on the track and came across three kangaroos and three trekkers.
You can imagine my surprise. The nearest kangaroo is carrying a joey in her pouch. I'm not sure if she's scratching her back because of a flea, or is suffering back problems as a result of the weight of the joey. Whatever, you can see that my appearance around the bend has startled all kangaroos whose attention is suddenly directed at me, including the guy in the red shirt who seems to find me more interesting than a kangaroo.
(Hope no-one thinks I'm hijacking the thread. Just having a bit of fun ;D )
For the benefit of those who wish to be pedantic, the creatures in this shot are not actually kangaroos but wallabies.
I see nothing unusual here.. great capture.
-
Interesting discussion to come in on after months of not paying attention to this forum. All has been said except this I think: from the perspective of your average joe who has a P&S and likes pretty pictures, the extent of post-processing really doesn't matter to his impression of the image, that is until he learns that things have been moved around (i.e., photoshopped). Then most, but not all, people have a somewhat more cynical view of the image. Essentially, their appreciation and admiration of the photograph and photographer have been diluted.
I should add that more and more people nowadays are not affected at all when they learn the shot has been P-shopped. But let's get real. It's only us photogs who can argue about extent of editing an image where all the elements present at time of capture are in their original places. Nobody else cares how much light Peter painted on that hill. It's a fine image. I'm very sure, by the way, that he could have gotten a much better result at another time, in better light, and without all the processing. Of course, the fact that I'm amazed this image is thought of so highly might lead one to discount my main point above (and I thought I was in synch with the photo-buying public - haha, NOT!).
Lastly, I think the main reasonable point I'm getting from most of you is, who cares as long as someone likes it, it turns you on, and (importantly) you are upfront about the way you made the image. I agree with that. The moody image of Eddie E's for example, I don't like, but not because it is too unreal (I can see I might like other images of his however). With all these people practicing the art of photography, and all this software, it's no wonder the boundaries are being pushed. But it should also come as no surprise when people push things to the point of ugliness, and a lot of fads get picked up on until you're ready to puke when you see the next image with an overused look. But it would be worse if things didn't evolve, wouldn't it? Take the good with the bad I say.
P.S. Peter E. really can explain a procedure well!
-
Ray, you lucked out again to capture such a realistic scene. And you didn't have to move any plants or rocks.
Do those kangoroos live at the plateau or were they just passing by? They even knew how to pose, did you have to direct them or did they naturally assume that dynamic triangle formation?
Good thing, I saw before the other kangaroo picture, otherwise I would have never believed that kangoroos live there. But these guys look like they really like the place. I wonder, how will the global warming affect them. They would be wise to look for some king penguins. Together they would be an unbeatable combination.
-
Ray, you lucked out again to capture such a realistic scene. And you didn't have to move any plants or rocks.
Do those kangoroos live at the plateau or were they just passing by? They even knew how to pose, did you have to direct them or did they naturally assume that dynamic triangle formation?
Good thing, I saw before the other kangaroo picture, otherwise I would have never believed that kangoroos live there. But these guys look like they really like the place. I wonder, how will the global warming affect them. They would be wise to look for some king penguins. Together they would be an unbeatable combination.
Yes. I was lucky they just happened to be in a fortunate pose. Not many people know there are kangaroos in Nepal. From what I gather, it seems that a fairly wealthy Nepalese farmer, who also owned and ran a hotel for the tourists somewhere in the mountainous regions around Annapurna, sent his son to Australia for an education, many years ago.
On returning from Australia, with his degree in Accountancy, to help run the family hotel, the son entertained his parents with interesting stories and pictures of the kangaroos he'd seen in Australia. His mother, who was in charge of the farming side of the business, became quite fascinated with these hopping marsupials, and made it clear she would love to have a few on her farm.
Now, one of the significant religious festivals in Nepal is the 'Teej' festival which celebrates the advent of the monsoon in July, and also celebrates the reuniting of the Godess Parvati with her husband, Lord Shiva. The occasion is one when Nepalese husbands usually buy their wife an expensive present such as jewelery, a new fridge or a mobile phone etc.
Now it so happens that on the occasion of one of these Teej festivals, several years ago, the husband being a rather unorthodox and imaginative fellow, decided he would surprise his wife with an unusual present, and at great expense and some difficulty, imported a few kangaroos as her 'Teej Festival' present.
Needless to say, his wife was delighted to see these strange creatures hopping around her farm, but of course they bred and multiplied, and a few inevitably escaped into the wider environment where, surprisingly, they felt quite at home and continued to proliferate.
However, one tends to see them more frequently in the higher, more remote regions of Nepal where there are fewer farmers and villages. Most Nepalese farmers are very poor and live at a subsistence level. A kangaroo would be viewed as a great source of food.
I hope this little explanatory note provides some additional meaning to the above photo. ;)
-
Quite a story, Ray. I can relate well to it, because a very similar situation happened in Canada.
In 1904, Newfoundland imported 4 moose. The difference between the Nepal and Newfoundland was that in case of Newfoundland, the farmers (well, there are not many farmers to start with) were too poor to fund such a project, so the government had to step in. However, it proved to be one of their better investments, since now, the total moose count comes to 120,000 (that's minus hundreds of those ungainly beasts that are killed every year on the roads). If you are resident of this beautiful province, your out-of-pocket expense to fill a large freezer is only $40.00. As a tourist, when you come to NFL, your license will cost still less than the latest PS camera.
Even without the license, you may be able to shoot a moose and a polar bear on the same day. If you are lucky, perhaps even member of the royal family.
Considering, how large is this province, I think, it could easily accommodate also a few thousands of kangaroos. That should help their economy, especialy the car collision garages. I must admit, that once the moose grow up, they are not as photogenic as wallabies. But on the other hand, they are some tough birds. Unlike some southern species, a baby moose don't require to be carried in any pouch or rucksack, they start walking within hours of their birth.
Back to the original topic, perhaps, if the Newfoundlanders stopped docking their tails and instead cropped their ears (of course, I mean, on the moose), you would see more fine art prints with moose on nicely lit hills and meadows.
-
.. the total moose count comes to 120,000 (that's minus hundreds of those ungainly beasts that are killed every year on the roads).
That's a sad state of affairs. The kangaroos in Nepal are also very vulnerable to collision with cars on the road. However, where there are roads the kangaroos are also very vulnerable to be killed for food. They've got two strong motivations to get the hell out of the place.
I normally trek in regions where there are no roads, so it is a delight to see the 'smart' kangaroos on the mountain tracks, who know where they are safe, and who are reasonably friendly and not too disturbed by the sight of strange, upright creatures with heavy-looking black things dangling around their neck, and other two-legged creatures with strange, long sticks emanating from their hands.
-
I got this shot of a field in Co. Tipperary at the weekend when the sun broke through the clouds to light up this small field. I had been thinking about Peter Eastway's article during attempts at getting a shot that I liked from earlier breaks in the clouds. In this case the lighting is natural but as I have maninpulated my shot in other ways as per my notes http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncoveneyphotos/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncoveneyphotos/), I'm not saying this is a better way of doing things - just different!
-
Nice shot, John; reminds me of France.
Rob C
-
Aloha,
So Peter, do you advocate looking for really poor overall light and then adding a spot of light to it?
Or do you think looking for amazing light and trying to capture that is better?
Or do you consider that light on site does not matter in photography any more?
Thank you in advance,
Lee
-
Having read a lot of articles by Peter Eastway and seen a fair representation of his photography the answer to the questions are: no, yes, no.
Peter's philosophy seems to be to lever whatever light is present to his advantage.
Regards
Tony Jay