Ok so I have to mention that I do not use PS at all and don’t really like using it, as I think part of the art of photography is the skill it takes to take the pic in the field..But this photo is one of the only photos I have ever used PS on. I used PS to splice the photo together..What do you think? There is a slight glitch in the splice on the horizon, and I don’t really know how to get rid of it..? Any ideas?
3 comments:
Jason this is a really well executed shot! I think it's beautiful. I would love to see this blown up. From the size of the pic it's hard to comment on the PS, but my initial impressions are all positive. If you are looking a for a project, and one which would sell as art prints, shoot the same shot at different times of the day (early morning glow on the mountain, table top clouds in the evening etc).
On the point of PS... I was a very reluctant convert to digital initially. I'm sure you have heard the arguments that film also 'changed' reality. I always used to (and still do when I shoot film) shoot Fuji Velvia for its saturated punchy colours. In the same vein wedding photogs loved Reala for the subtle skin tones and the almost miraculous way it seemed to soften skin blemishes.
The irony of course is that PS has now meant that it takes even longer to get the photo you want (with film you just waited for your results from the lab). Each photographer to their own when it comes to the amount of manipulation too. Some say colour tweaking etc are acceptable and actual manipulation of objects unacceptable. Others say anything goes. In nature photography colour correction, curves, levels and saturation etc are generally accepted. BWPY asks for the RAW files along with the finished jpeg so as to check that manipulation hasn't occurred (adding or subtracting major elements in the composition). Stitching, like you have done and HDR images is a widely accepted usage of PS (stitching has been done for decades before computers were the norm and HDR was done essentially in the darkroom...or if you know how to use the zone system, in camera). There's also the reality that if you shoot in RAW you HAVE to use PS for the simple fact that RAW has no imaging parameters attached to it. Shooting in jpeg has all sorts of little commands attached that you would have done in PS anyway (reality as defined as what the eye sees is nonexistent in any form of digital photography - then again in any form of photography whatsoever).
Anywho, that's my take in a bungling kind of way. Paul might be able to put it more succinctly (Paul?). On a parting note on PS, Nikon now produces cameras that tag the image so that no changes can be made whatsoever...specialized usage for police etc.
Oh and last off. Stunning image!
E
Hi Jason. Having been dared into the conversation by Emil (Thanks Pops!) .... here goes....
The image first. I agree with Emil in some aspects but not in others. I agree with the marketability/different shooting times etc but I think for different reasons. I think it would be a cool project as a series ie same composition and framing at different times of day (which I think is what Emil is saying) I think it would work well in a series. However as a single image it vexes me though I battle to pin point why exactly. Like Emil, I don't want to comment on the photoshop as it pertains to this particular image as it is a little small to see any detail and therefore make suggestions. I guess what troubles me mostly is that (at this size anyway) the image is dominated by a large dark space right in the middle. There is little detail and being centrally placed it is difficult to ignore. You need to light up that mountain. (Ok so this is not an ideal world and is clearly easier said than done.) This is why a different time of day is a good idea as it would take care of this. As would this image in a series.
Secondly the lighthouse thingy building item (sorry not familiar with the area!) is cropped real close. If it is cropped off at the top, then it would be better to have the extremity included. If it is included in its totality then it is a little tight.
What I love about the image, apart from the idea and the conceptualisation, is the awesome balance, denoted physically in the frame, as well as connotatively by the light at left (man made) and at right (natural) I think this with a better (not brightly!) lit mountain would be a killer!
As far as Pshop goes, there could be, and probably are, gazillions of sites and commentaries on the ethics of photo manipulation. For me it is fairly simple and is alluded to Emil... Each to their own and FOR THEIR OWN MARKET. So in journalism, Getty and many other related institutions it would be difficult to justify the removal of ANYTHING out of an image. But in portraiture / weddings etc this is perfectly acceptable and often desired. And yet HDR, becoming widely accepted essentially REMOVES from the image (areas that would otherwise be 'too dark' or 'too light') But it is accepted. Hypocritical? Absolutely! And that is why the market is so important. And that is why we all take (or should take)photos. To satisfy a market so that we can make a sale so that we can do it again.
Aaaaaaanyway if that was a succinct response then the flat world is in the back of my palm!
Gosh we do go on a bit don't we?
Paul (the non succinct version!)
Hi Guys, thanx for the advice..Its a pity I cant load a bigger pic on here, as the file starts getting a bit big..in terms of lighting up the mountain...there is a possibility of that, ever so often when we don’t have power shortages in Cape Town, they put spot lights up on the mountain...this would help with the dark space in the centre, I’m afraid though that they have not put these lights on for a long time. I did take a shot similar to this one years ago with the lights on, it was taken with film but I cant seem to find the negatives...I will post another shot with the mountain at diff times, but when the mountain is lighter the dramatic effect of the light is less, but lets see the comments once iv posted it...thanx again for the crits...CHEERS
Post a Comment