Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: MattBurt on August 07, 2017, 09:48:35 am
-
I was hoping for a special sunset with all the ingredients present (virga, great clouds, breaks in the clouds to the West) but last night it just never came together. I just stopped by our whitewater park which is close to home to get some photos. Since the sunset never came together, blue hour would have to do.
645D & Arsat 30/3.5 (de-fished somewhat)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4359/36248704682_cb9593016f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Xeb61W)IMGP2166-Edit-2 (https://flic.kr/p/Xeb61W) by Matt Burt (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattbnet/), on Flickr
-
Beautiful flow to the river and great clouds. Seems un-naturally blue, though it conveys the feeling well.
Two nigglies (for me, anyway)...the naked branch in the foreground and what appears to be a small, oblong sign post on the far side.
-
Beautiful flow to the river and great clouds. Seems un-naturally blue, though it conveys the feeling well.
Two nigglies (for me, anyway)...the naked branch in the foreground and what appears to be a small, oblong sign post on the far side.
The branch doesn't bother me, but I agree with all Terry's other points. Get rid of the white post and you've a winner.
Jeremy
-
Thanks! Now that I'm looking at it again the post is pretty obvious and the blue is pretty blue. I think the 645D's CCD sensor might be contributing. I'll see how dialing it back a little looks when I can.
-
Good idea, Matt. I agree about the post, and it's far, far too blue. Check the green in the trees. They're blue-saturated too. Something's just not quite right. Fine shot though from the standpoint of composition.
-
I like blue hour images; for my taste this is only a little too blue. I wouldn't want you to over-correct it and lose the mood. You have some super water detail.
I also like the branch in the river. The post is the only distraction.
-
Here is an edit. I kept the stick which I also like but reduced the blue with a wb adjustment and removed the sign.
Our blue hours are very blue but even when the photo is accurate people from elsewhere don't find it realistic.
-
I hope your not depressed or have the blues. ;D
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=119267.0
-
I hope your not depressed or have the blues. ;D
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=119267.0
Only a just before sunrise or just after sunset!
-
Our blue hours are very blue but even when the photo is accurate people from elsewhere don't find it realistic.
I'd go with getting a look you like and not worrying much about realism. This edit is fine, though. (I like the original too.) I'd leave the sign in myself: it was there.
-Dave-
-
"it was there."
Beware: can of worms opening; rant following... (not directed to Dave, personally, but to the idea he suggests)
"It was there" may have been good enough motivation for Mallory, but it is never a good reason to leave anything in a photograph. It never has been, even in the film days, and never will be. I'll grant that it's certainly a well-entrenched belief/philosophy/dogma, but it's not based on any legitimacy.
The two assumptions this notion is often based on are (a) Earth/Nature is static, unchanging; and/or (b) a photograph is a genuine reproduction of a scene (note the oxymoron). Well, neither concept holds any truth. The blade of grass, pebble or branch that's here today, could easily be gone tomorrow with a wind or a wave. The sign/post in Matt's photograph could also be gone tomorrow or painted over, or even replaced with a billboard. Nothing is static; there's no reason why we should think otherwise.
And photographs have simply never been nor ever will be entirely truthful to the scene they represent. They are entirely malleable through every step of the process. The photographer chooses a time, date, point of view, perspective, exposure, depth-of-field, etc., etc., so whatever they capture at that moment has already been manipulated. Look at the water in Matt's photograph – it's clearly not the way it looked; it was determined by shutter speed. Even the blueness is up for debate and can be changed. What if the sign were not removed, but simply darkened with a hue change to blend in? Would that keep the scene any more "honest"?
Bottom line: Why should a single object in the photograph be held in sacrosanct if the whole presentation of the scene is manipulated?
-
I agree with Terry. But I'd add that it depends on whether you're doing reportage or art. If it's reportage then it's immoral if not illegal to remove stuff. If it's art then anything goes.
-
I generally leave things in if I intended it to be in the photo but that sign did surprise me when I noticed it after taking the photo. In those cases if it's an art image I have no issue with removing the offending element. I consider my style somewhere between reportage and art; I want to make beautiful images that are also at least mostly representative of reality. And by that I mean that if I worked something into my composition to compliment or at least not detract, I'll be inclined to leave it in the shot. It's only when an object is a distraction that I didn't account for and/or intend to be in the image that I take matters into my own hands and try to fix it. It all makes perfect sense in my head... ;)
-
Whew! I'm greatly relieved, Matt, to see you miss something in your picture the way I missed the slight tilt in mine.
-
Whew! I'm greatly relieved, Matt, to see you miss something in your picture the way I missed the slight tilt in mine.
Oh good. Glad I can be an ample resource for overlooked details in my work! :)
-
I agree with Terry. But I'd add that it depends on whether you're doing reportage or art. If it's reportage then it's immoral if not illegal to remove stuff. If it's art then anything goes.
Agreed. I didn't make it clear I was referring to expressive photography where artistic license is permitted. Reportage is a different kettle of fish. But even then, one must consider the photograph is a manipulation of reality. As well, things are consciously left out all the time by the photographer through composition, perspective and point of view (unless it's 360° VR work!), sometimes to the point of losing context.
Anyway, it's a discussion/debate as old as the medium with myriad nuances.
-
I agree with Terry. But I'd add that it depends on whether you're doing reportage or art. If it's reportage then it's immoral if not illegal to remove stuff. If it's art then anything goes.
Absolutely.
Jeremy
-
. . .things are consciously left out all the time by the photographer through composition, perspective and point of view. . .
Only by leftist photographers.
-
Beware: can of worms opening; rant following... (not directed to Dave, personally, but to the idea he suggests)
Complete agreement. ;D
-Dave-
-
Only by leftist photographers.
That might explain it for me but somehow I doubt that description could be used for you.
(and speaking of cans of worms, I think I was once a centrist but the whole landscape shifted right on me)
-
I'm surprised no-one has picked up on the particular photographic dogma I intended to tweak with my little aside. The one that declares: "Remove evidence of human presence in a nature/landscape photo." But maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough. Otherwise, what Lux/Terry has written is pretty much my own take on the subject of alteration. Like I said, don't worry much about realism. Do what works for the photo.
The attached pic has had part of a tree removed via cropping and both a tiny bird and a dust spot removed via "healing." However I've left in the evidence of human presence. :D
As for one specific other part of the thread: identity posturers will posture.
-Dave-