I know, I know. I had originally promised something new for this weeks post, but that has given way to an older piece that I believe is finally at a point I am comfortable with.
The image was captured at the area around Arches known as the "Windows," and as you can see there was quite a bit of weather blowing through. I took multiple shots of this scene, fully expecting to blend them together later so that I could capture more of the dynamic range than a single image could manage. The problem was that, once back home, I could never get the image to look anything close to what I was after.
I kept after it, and would pull it up from time to time to give it a tweak, and have finally come up with a version that works well enough. The only problem I have with it now is one of ethics. On the one hand I really don't have a problem using photoshop to enhance an image. But on the other there is a point where you have either gone too far, or not quite far enough, to make your image believable. Ted's images, for example, go far enough that there is little, if any, doubt about the manipulation involved. The viewer realizes that they are not looking at a "straight" photo. Andreas' images, however, may have as much work behind them, but they still maintain the look of a more or less "straight" photograph.
Has this image stretched into the realm of fiction, or does it look like a straight enough photo? To be honest I can't tell anymore. I've got too much time behind it. For the sake of comparison I am providing the originally blended and tonemapped result from three images.
Until next time.
