CC on desert shot

[astroskeptic]

I'd like to know what you think of the following attempt. I wanted to do something appealing in B/W so I played with converting a color daytime desert shot in PS when I noticed that I could easily make the sky pitch black. I then thought, "hmmm ... a few starts might go nicely" and I blended in a few layers of star fields I had (actually, just one layer that I duplicated and warped to increase star density). I realize the stars are a little blurry but other than that, I think the result is kinda cool. What do you think?

Arizona Moonscape

 

[dimwit]

It looks off—almost like you're viewing it IR-only. If that's what you were shooting for, then you accomplished it. I don't particularly like it, though.

 

[misstwinklytoes]

*quietly wonders what IR is as she goes to the acronym thread*

 

[misstwinklytoes]

*quietly wanders back in* Umm... It wasn't on the acronym thread... what is IR?

 

[astroskeptic]

*quietly wanders back in* Umm... It wasn't on the acronym thread... what is IR?

The reference was to infrared photography. We don't see in IR but some camera sensors are fairly sensitive to it and if you use an appropriate filter you can take pictures in IR "light" as opposed to visible light. I believe the pictures are rendered as grayscale so they have a B/W look. Since IR can be sensed as heat, the higher intensity areas of IR photos correspond to regions of higher temperature in the field of view so you get white where the picture is radiatively hottest and black where it is coldest. The result can look unnatural (which is often the intent) since the warm parts of the scene may not correspond to the parts that we would expect to look bright in visible light (and hence white).

My picture was intended to look unnatural and I agree with the IR resemblance. What was intended was a glimpse of what Arizona might look like if the atmosphere were removed.

 

[misstwinklytoes]

Thx! I think it looks neat. I don't really think it looks realistic, but that was the point!

I might try adjusting the contrast on the real photo so that it looks crisper.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Miss,In infrared photography, the film or image sensor used is sensitive to infrared light. The part of the spectrum used is referred to as near-infrared to distinguish it from far-infrared, which is the domain of thermal imaging. Wavelengths used for photography range from about 700 nm to about 900*nm. Usually an "infrared filter" is used; this lets infrared (IR) light pass through to the camera, but blocks all or most of the visible light spectrum (the filter thus looks black or deep red).

When these filters are used together with infrared-sensitive film or sensors, very interesting "in-camera effects" can be obtained; false-color or black-and-white images with a dreamlike or sometimes lurid appearance known as the "Wood Effect," an effect mainly caused by foliage (such as tree leaves and grass) strongly reflecting in the same way visible light is reflected from snow[1]. There is a small contribution from chlorophyll fluorescence, but this is marginal and is not the real cause of the brightness seen in infrared photographs. The effect is named after the infrared photography pioneer Robert W. Wood, and not after the material wood, which does not strongly reflect infrared.

The other attributes of infrared photographs include very dark skies and penetration of atmospheric haze, caused by reduced Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering, respectively, compared to visible light. The dark skies, in turn, result in less infrared light in shadows and dark reflections of those skies from water, and clouds will stand out strongly. These wavelengths also penetrate a few millimeters into skin and give a milky look to portraits, although eyes often look black.

(Google is your best friend)

 

[KmH]

If you could get Orion or Cassiopea in the star field.

I like the effect. The edge of the mountains is just a bit to crisp.