Stirling Ranges

[Petrus]

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

[petermfiore]

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

[Dave Millier]

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

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[petermfiore]

All pictures in all forms whether painted, photographed or moving are Illusions. That's the magic. That's the ART!



Peter F

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

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.

[CalvinHobbes]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[Justan]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[Rajan Parrikar]

Peter's final image with the spotlight like illumination of the hillock is entirely believable. See this -

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1121631

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[Rajan Parrikar]

? 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?

[Peter Stacey]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[Isaac]

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

[theguywitha645d]

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.

[theguywitha645d]

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.