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.
4 comments:
mcmurma, I have been seeing alot of HDR work lately and it usually does have a "fake" or story book look to it. I however do not get this from your photo today. Hope this helps. That is one beautiful image and thank you for sharing.
I love this the colors are amazing and the view exceptional.... I do love this!!!
Michael,
I think this image looks pretty straight. Knowing about the process of course draws attention to process-related artifacts, and one could probably argue about the sky looking slightly artificial, but, at least at this resolution, it is not more artificial than one that has been shot with split-ND filters, maybe even less.
In general, I think it is not very important where in regard to this line you are. Sometimes I am on this side, sometimes on the other, actually I don't care. I don't try to maintain a consistent style. I find that boring :)
Andreas
"Manipulated"? "Straight"? "Believable"? "Far Enough"? "Fake"? "Story Book"?
Who decides what you want to say? The moment? Nature? Serendipity? Caprice? You?
What are the limits imposed upon your voice? Physics? Technology? Time? Money? Craft?
What is more important, recording an historic instant, or communicating an abstract concept? Or... or... communicating an abstract concept while seeming to record an historic instant?
At what point should the discipline of presenting an organic image ... the expectation that you will present an organic image ... overwhelm the instinct to reveal a deeply felt emotion or idea - or both?
Is art about organic subterfuge? Is the package the tail or the dog? Whose expectations are met by achieving an organic verisimilitude in every image?
Does a composer manipulate music? A sculpture manipulate marble? A novelist? An actor, dancer, musician... what do they manipulate? What organic disciplines demand that they package their product in an organic package? What is their organic package?
Why do photographic ARTISTS find any pressure at all to confine themselves within a rigor of "Gosh-what-a-moment-you-discovered"? Is our process one of manipulating something, or enhancing it?
If there is a dishonesty implied in the act of manipulation, is there a nobility implied in the act of enhancement?
When an image does not communicate what we feel it can, will, must.... What is the seed of our frustration? Insufficient craft? Insufficient technology? Insufficient ability to conform to an organic law that states, "Thou Shalt Look Real"
In Italy recently I saw Michelangelo's "David". Trust me the statue did not look "real" I know few guys who are twenty feet high and sport his "girl-giggle-inducing" equipment. Um... of course I exclude present company from that observation... but my point is... to each of you... that art isn't constrained by the rules of the Organic Photography Movement... or if it is... I'm not certain that it is art at all.
Wuddaya think?
Ted
PS - I think you lavished too little work upon the bushes in the foreground. They fail to pop sufficiently to balance that majestic sky and to make the point of the fearsome majesty of nature.... and its short term fragility.
Post a Comment