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.

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Re: Ethical feedback

Hello all,

Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.

Any thoughts on this sort of thing?

Ed

[/url]IMGP5166_Step11CropSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP5166_Step15FlatSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
Ed,

I would keep some of the ground clutter - the distant low buildings that you erased. It would make the moved spire look less pasted in. If that means moving the spire less, or placing some of the low buildings further right, I’m not sure.

Anyway, I’ve no objection to manipulating scene elements.

Nice pic,

Matt
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi Ed,

I very much agree with the posted comments of Matt. I feel the two spires (the one on the very left and the one on the right), balance well with each other. In addition, one can see the small part of the bottom of the spire on the right, giving legitimacy to its location, where in the 2nd manipulated image, it does look a bit like it was cut and paste as Matt suggested. Personally I much prefer and like the original image you posted.

Dave (D&A)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Re: Ethical feedback

Hello all,

Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.

Any thoughts on this sort of thing?

Ed

[/url]IMGP5166_Step11CropSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP5166_Step15FlatSpotSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
I am rather ambivalent about this type of manipulation. What I find that makes them unsatisfactory is they are too planned, too conceptual, which eliminates the accidents, those odd features we don't usually notice until we clean them up. For example, I have never seen a perfectly flat series of roof tops. Also the tower on the right which you moved into the center, no longer has a natural perspective, it somehow looks pasted because it does not align with change in perspective across the image. These are very subtle and probably no one will ever consciously mark them, but it does create a strange unease in the image.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Re: Ethical feedback

Hello all,

Seeking the wise counsel of this group! Below are two versions of a picture I recently took (it will be familiar!). One shows the scene as it was (apart from removing a chimney that was in the way) and the other seeks a more pleasing composition by moving around some structures in the scene. I don't pretend it's a faithful depiction of the scene - just an image I like.

Any thoughts on this sort of thing?

Ed
I don't have any ethical problems with manipulation like this (as long as you don't submit it for a contest in which this is not allowed) but I feel it's not needed (the unaltered image is excellent "as-is" for me), and like several said your eye still picks up subtle hints that "something isn't right". Probably not seeing both images side-by-side will not give the viewer a hint what exactly has been done with the second image unless he studies it in a lot of detail.

But I've done this kind of stuff myself, like moving birds to a different place in the sky as well as removing disturbing street signs and lamp posts.

I would be interested to see a version with the "disturbing chimney" in place, just out of curiosity and see what kind of hoops you had to jump through to get the complete building behind it.
 

Craig Stocks

Well-known member
Something a little different.

During our photo shoot the model talked about a recent personal tragedy she had been dealing with over the last year and that she was now ready to start moving ahead. She asked to doing something using the projected lightning bolt and I think we were subconsciously drawn to this setup using oblique lighting which we gradually worked and tweaked into this arrangement. Looking at the image now I clearly see someone who is ready to leave their past in the background as they begin their journey forward. I don't think either of us realized at the time why we were creating this image but I love the collaborative result.

Phase One XF / IQ4 150 MP with a 150mm LS lens. Unmodified flash camera left with a red gel, strip box camera right (both positioned slightly behind the backdrop) and a LightBlaster to project the lightning bolt onto her back.
 

Attachments

dave.gt

Well-known member
Wabi Sabi elements lend themselves to different means of expressions. This is the Happy Easter version we sent out with a different message for each recipient based on individual life circumstances. I like it.

Happy Easter Garden Gate Sign Dark.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top