The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I posted this image once before in a different incarnation (4:3). Someone wants this in a panoramic version. I like this better than the original; however, to produce this version I had to use content-aware-scale. It works very well on this image, but somehow makes me uncomfortable, so I'm curious if it would trouble others.
Tom
We'd never know that it had been 'augmented' unless you'd said so. I think that it's perfectly acceptable to use content aware scale, image reversal or the warp tool to make an image interesting. It's art, not documentary, so I'd say that if it looks good, why the heck not. :chug:
 

alajuela

Active member
We'd never know that it had been 'augmented' unless you'd said so. I think that it's perfectly acceptable to use content aware scale, image reversal or the warp tool to make an image interesting. It's art, not documentary, so I'd say that if it looks good, why the heck not. :chug:
+1
 
A very talented artist at our galerie - Jeremy Maxwell Wintrebert
Art Reproduction Photo
Alpa Max
50HR Alpagon
17mm Tilt Adapter (x2)
P65+
Profoto Lighting


 

tsjanik

Well-known member
We'd never know that it had been 'augmented' unless you'd said so. I think that it's perfectly acceptable to use content aware scale, image reversal or the warp tool to make an image interesting. It's art, not documentary, so I'd say that if it looks good, why the heck not. :chug:
OK, works for me. :D
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I posted this image once before in a different incarnation (4:3). Someone wants this in a panoramic version. I like this better than the original; however, to produce this version I had to use content-aware-scale. It works very well on this image, but somehow makes me uncomfortable, so I'm curious if it would trouble others.
Tom
Photography is a game of illusions. Part of that game are the rules each photographer sets for himself. Personally, I would not manipulate an image that way--I find the magic is in what is there, not what I can make (naturally, there is a whole bunch of changes I will do to color and contrast, but hypocrisy is really the oldest philosophy). But also, I don't really care what other photographers limit themselves to and enjoy whatever they want to do. You only have yourself to please.
 

edouard

Member
Thanks very much Ray! It's only 60-sec exposure. I agree the clouds were crazy!
Thanks for pointing out the stars. I thought it was artifacts and am glad I didn't delete them.
Pramote

great image!

60-sec exposure at dawn/night or during the day with a ND (10?) filter ?
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Photography is a game of illusions. Part of that game are the rules each photographer sets for himself. Personally, I would not manipulate an image that way--I find the magic is in what is there, not what I can make (naturally, there is a whole bunch of changes I will do to color and contrast, but hypocrisy is really the oldest philosophy). But also, I don't really care what other photographers limit themselves to and enjoy whatever they want to do. You only have yourself to please.
I have the dissenting voice in my head too, which is why I asked the question. It might be worth mentioning the particulars of this image. In the full image there are five rocks, but each is really too small in the whole scene, so the image needs cropping (I used the longest lens I had available at the time and there was no chance to revisit this scene). One rock on the left was quite far from the others and has simply been cropped from the image. That left four rocks, not a good number for this image. To balance the expanse on the left side I needed to remove the fourth rock on the far right. My cloning skills are not good enough to remove it so I cropped and used scaling. I don’t hesitate to crop a file; I have no reluctance to clone out undesirable elements (wires, litter, etc.). I would have had no hesitation to have physically removed the rock, but somehow scaling seemed a new level of manipulation although it is in fact equivalent and less work. It’s a slippery slope, but this print is making someone happy and as Graham said “it’s art, not documentary”. So I'm OK with it.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
great image!

60-sec exposure at dawn/night or during the day with a ND (10?) filter ?
Thanks very much edouard! It was at night ~ 8-9 PM. The beach was located in front of the hotel, therefore, the water got lots of light from the spotlight. I probably use the GND filter but reverse it with the dark side downward.
Pramote
 

WildRover

Member
I like this better than the original; however, to produce this version I had to use content-aware-scale. It works very well on this image, but somehow makes me uncomfortable, so I'm curious if it would trouble others.
Tom

Tom, I think what you have done is quite all right as others have said. Your presentation of the scene can be as wild or conservative as you choose, and as art, you have free reign to depict things as you wish. It's a very nice image by the way. My photographic endeavors tend to be of a documentary style where I want to show a particular place or natural process and therefore I don't want to change things or if I do, then conservatively. If another person stands where I was at - they would see that same scene. I will get rind of leaves, some small stones, branches, and such to improve the image. I'll also use warp and other transform tools occasionally to nudge a composition into place. I try to do these things with care not to overdo it, but I use them all the time. It all comes down to the individual. There are those that are outraged by any form of manipulation suggesting that that makes the image impure. The only pure thing is actually being out there feeling the breeze, the warmth, the cold, the sweat, and rain, bugs, seeing the sun, stars, moon and clouds arc across the sky, experience the day change from night to day - day to night. Thats whats pure.
 

Grayhand

Well-known member
To quote Shashin: Photography is a game of illusions.

For me, words are symbols of symbols.
Pictures is just symbols, one step closer to the interpreters own experience of the seen.
But when I hold up the picture for others to see, then I loose almost all control of what the others choose to see.
The illusion is that I bring the content to the viewer, but I only bring a framework for the viewer to project his or her interpretation on.

But, if we feel that we need to fully control what the viewer "see", then we maybe should just take "forensic" picture,
where we claim that nothing is altered, that it is the true reality we present to the viewer.

I cant do that, I must give free space for the viewer to fill in their own interpretation.
For me it is more important with an emotional response to my picture rather than an verbal response, from the viewer.
Not to intellectualize and verbalise in the first moment of seeing, as a protection, but to actually dare to react to the seen, to feel.

But that is me, what I must do. It demands nothing of you, how you chose to work with your pictures. That is between you and your "God".

Ray

RZProll, 65mm ML-A?, P45

 

WildRover

Member
I'm not a run and gun kind of photographer. Slow and methodical for better or worse. This is where I "took my stand" this particular morning. I found a composition I liked, and as the darkness gave way to dawn I took a few shots. This was over a year ago and I was reluctant at the time to use the higher ISO's. Only being able to go up to 30 seconds (without the camera doing it's dark frame noise exposure) my apertures were too large to get good complete focus. So my first images - as the clouds started to light up are messed up. As it got brighter, the clouds behind me were really coming to life. I took a series of photos from this basic location, but behind me. Then the entire sky lit up a pinkish orange and I was able to return to my original composition and only get off a couple shots before the clouds almost completely faded away. The pano here was really an afterthought. The light seemed gone and I did the pano as more of a practice exercise than anything. It turned out much better than I anticipated and I'm happy with it. Spent over a half hour afterward looking for the small plastic X-sync cap that had fallen off. That tiny thing blended in so well, But I found it!

Pentax 645D, 35mm-A, f/16 hyper focused, 5 vertical images stitched
 
Last edited:

ondebanks

Member
I posted this image once before in a different incarnation (4:3). Someone wants this in a panoramic version. I like this better than the original; however, to produce this version I had to use content-aware-scale. It works very well on this image, but somehow makes me uncomfortable, so I'm curious if it would trouble others.
Tom


_IGP0535_8924long by tsjanik47, on Flickr

What? Content-aware scale deployed by a respected medium format landscape photographer?! Click here for appropriate sound effect. :shocked:

...Actually it's fine by me! :LOL:

Ray
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
Tom...It's just me. I truly admire your pictures. They've always showed me the beauty of nature. I can hear the sound of the waves and smell of ocean in your pictures. With your talent and dedication, you don't really need any special effects.
Please do it to please yourself, not others.
The picture looks very nice though.
Pramote
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top