2 from tonight's sunset

Digital Matt · Sep 5, 2006

Thanks Mohain, and thank you John

Alex_B · Sep 5, 2006

very nice!
prefer the second one in terms of composition.

but the first one is definitely less tame and less common regarding the colours

jwkwd · Sep 5, 2006

Just.............................WOW!

dirtnapper · Sep 5, 2006

Excellent! WOW!

zombiekilla · Sep 5, 2006

I think there awesome! The only problem I have with digitally altered photos is you cant see the persons natural talent. To me it seems like its all about who can digitally alter their photos better. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying you have a lack of talent at all. Obviously they were beautiful shots to begin with. It just urks me that everyone feels the need to alter their photos.

forceflow1049 · Sep 5, 2006

That second shot is simply amazing!

Digital Matt · Sep 5, 2006

Thank you everyone

Zombiekilla, every photo is manipulated, the second you press the shutter button. It's manipulated again when you develop it, and yet again when you print it. Why are you so concerned only with digital editing? It seems to present the point of view that film is not manipulated at all in post process, and only what is done by the photographer at the scene is what is seen in the print. Totally untrue.

Yes, I did develop two versions of a raw file, something that is unique to digital. Using the zone system and manipulating highlight/shadows, and contrast range through development is a feature of black and white film. Cross processing is a feature of shooting color film.

I could have just as easily shot these with slide film, and a combination of neutral grad filters. I could have altered the colors in the second shot either by using a warming filter over the lens, or altering my filter pack when making the print.

oCyrus55 · Sep 5, 2006

Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla. I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill. I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.

Digital Matt · Sep 5, 2006

oCyrus55 said:
Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla. I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill. I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.

I will rely first and formost on my heart, to lead my artwork in the direction it wants to go. After that, I will rely on every tool in my arsenal, to achieve the desired expression. Photography is an artform, one that uses many techniques, and many pieces of equipment.

I wouldn't limit myself to one brush if I was a painter, and nobody would expect me to. It's silly.

True skill, or natural talent, is utilized at every step of any artistic process, from pre-visualization, to creation, and even post visualization. If you don't consider these steps important, then you don't know enough about them, and you haven't seen a piece of art all the way through to its end.

The camera is just the beginning.

fightheheathens · Sep 6, 2006

great shots.

first,
When i have developed, my prints i bring out of the dark room are often more manipulated that what i do with digital. (mostly because i am not very good with digital)

secondly

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
-Ansel Adams

Alex_B · Sep 6, 2006

have to comment on all this "manipulation of the image hides your true skill" .. it is always a question what you want to achieve and show! Altering things in photoshop or in a RAW-converter or using filters also needs some expertise and skill and feeling for colours and moods.

It is simply the question if you feel more like a creative artist who does not want to create a natural look in his images, but who wants to transfer some mood pushed to the extreme ... or if you want your photo to reflect the actual light at the scene in a documentary sense.

But where does manipulation start anyway? It is hard to draw a line! Manipulation is already if you use a polariser, or a colour filter. Manipulation is also if you use a film like Fuji Velvia with its rather extreme contrast and colours, manipulation is also if you tweak your tone curve slightly in your RAW-converter to get to the look you remember when taking the photo at the scene.
HOWEVER, your impression of the scene is something rather emotional, therefore you will often put things in your interpretation of the tone curve which are more related to the smell, the sounds and your mood when you were there. Believe me, we do it without realising!

The true colour-calibrated image often looks rather dull and not vibrant at all (but it is what actually reaches our eyes when we are out there!).

The images shown here take this "manipulation" to the extreme. Maybe this is even more honest than the only subtle tweaking we all do mostly to our photos, as in the xtreme case it is easy to see that it is not the true colours, but it is the artists interpretation and what he wants to express.

Mohain · Sep 6, 2006

I'm sorry, I tried, but I cant help myself ....

zombiekilla3k said:
I think there awesome! The only problem I have with digitally altered photos is you cant see the persons natural talent. To me it seems like its all about who can digitally alter their photos better. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying you have a lack of talent at all. Obviously they were beautiful shots to begin with. It just urks me that everyone feels the need to alter their photos.

oCyrus55 said:
Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla. I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill. I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.

Comments like this make me laugh. Some people just don't think what they are saying sometime (I know I'm guilty of that sin!)

... So is it OK to use an ND grad, diffuse filter, tobacco grad, warm 85 filter and Velvia film then produce a hand print, dodging and burning highlights and shadows in order to produce a more blalanced print and print it on a glossy paper that's known to produce saturated colours? But it's not OK to alter a digital file how you see fit?

Sorry Matt, PM me if you want me to delete this reply I don't want to distract from the wonderful images you have produced.

/thread hijack over

Arch · Sep 6, 2006

yes its one of those arguements were opinions can differ alot.... and sometimes its experience that gives a more reasonable appraisal.

Its easy to spot a photo which has had very obvious photoshoping.... i.e. a crazy preset filter that makes the image look more like graphic art than a photograph.... and quite often these types of images arn't pre-visualized, they are just an after thought.

But this is not the case here.... the processing takes nothing away from the original subject.... in fact it enhances the drama/emotion..... and if its how matt visualized it, then it is successful.