lightning

[karissa]

Dang... I always miss the good stuff. *snap*

Everyone has a style and I think if you don't like a particular persons style... don't look at there stuff. Now, as far as composition here... I think you follow the rule of thirds quite well Cannon. I have done some digital art like this before. It can be fun. However the goal is to make it as real as possible. So take the notes that where posted to say it was fake and try to expand on them. People here are not much into using photoshop to alter the reality of a picture. You might want to warn them ahead of time. I posted one not to long ago that had been digitally composed like this and did not get this kind of a response.

The people here love taking photos and like to help people become better in there craft. I think we all need to just calm down a bit and be a little more understanding of other people.

 

[canonrebel]

As for the 2 photos you say I've altered, you're wrong, I haven't touched them in ANY way, they are exactly how they've been downloaded from the camera, with the exception of having been resized and having had the JPEG quality factor lowered in order to meet Photobucket's 250KB limit. I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.

daniel_p, I don't recall implying that both of your pictures were edited--Only the snapshot of the tree tops. And I only came about that opinion because there is a certain amount of latitude that digital cameras and film can capture and the tree-top picture seemed to me when viewed on my specific monitor to have surpassed the max range of latitude possible from a digital camera or even a film camera--just seemed to be too much contrast to be natural and pure. The pic doesn't have any focal point. it doesn't have a point of interrest. it doesn't make a statement. it doesn't show that there was any deliberate effort of composition, but it is beautiful and that makes it art in my opinion.

The other picture (the one of the sky) to which I referred was mentioned because I thought it was less than a snapshot.

Anyone from 3 years old to 90 years old could have shot that shot. And I've noticed that it's no longer available to view--it should not have been submitted in the Critique thread, anyway.

My opinion of what is Art, is any painting, any construction, any picture or any creation that has been meticulously and deliberately created and is non ordinary. By ordinary, I mean a snapshot or painting or construction or creation that appears to have been created by accident or by the totally inexperienced.

I'm becoming afraid that the digital-film era could destroy photographic art. Back in the days when film was truely king, there were few amature photographers that would waste 29 cents on a 4x6 print that was made when the camera was accidently pointing at the sky when it was dropped. Now that the digital era upon us there is no cost or value to snapping a shutter, there's not as much deliberation or hesitation or planning or composing before the shutter is snapped. The snap is free, it doesn't cost anything, it might get lucky.

It's likely that if one could stand beside Vonnagy with an identical camera as his and shoot the same scene, one would come up with a totally dissimilar outcome. Or it's possible that one could shoot a different scene than his and during the RAW-to-jpg conversion, change the light temperature just slightly and produce that gorgeous blue cast (that is so common in a lot of his creations) and be fooled completely into thinking it was real and pure; but it would be Art just the same if it were as pleasant to look upon as one of Vonnagy's fantastic photos.

Once upon a time, I never liked dark-room manipulations. I thought of them as being faked until I learned to do some of it.

I feel there is no middle line with art. It either is or it isn't art regardless of whether it is a Pure un-retouched photo, a painting, a skyscraper, or photoshopped. The main concern for art is only about beauty--or should be regardless of however it was achieved.

Those who put limits on certain kinds of post processing but use a little of it should be true to themselves and never use any kind or any amount of post processing.

Those who are purest and want a purest forum may want to visit
www.pbase.com
But not if they fear being ripped to shreads. This forum has a special section of photoshop only. And if you post anything in the photographs section, take special care that it is righteous.

cheers 8)

 

[canonrebel]

canonrebel- Personally, I think there's a fine line between a digital photo and digital art. Where's that line? At what point in the post-processing work flow does one cross the line? Everyone will have a different take on that issue, but the line is there.

I appreciate your views on the fine line. My own view on that fine line is that the fine line is as conspicious as a brick wall and as obnoxious as a bull elk in a china shop.

Saturation/color correction/sharpening/etc., the traditional darkroom arts (for lack of a better term) are accepted as part of photography

.
If a pic has been through a manipulation process for any reason ( 1/2 step exposure correction, crop, ANYTHING that has changed since the moment of the sutter snap) THE PICTURE HAS BEEN MANIPULATED.

Placing things wholesale into a photo until it no longer resembles a photo, to my mind, crosses the line into digital art.

I can relate to this point of view because I once disliked darkroom manipulation until I learned how to do it--now, I find it acceptable. I once dispised faked pictures until I learned how to fake them.

Now, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with digital art, but I feel it belongs in the proper forum. Should there be a "manipulated picture" forum here? Not for me to say. But since there isn't one, and you feel you need to show your "art" (my term), then at least identify it as such.

There already is a manipulated picture forum here (the "critique" and the "The Photo Gallery - post your photos here!" contain manipulated submissions. There maybe should be a purest forum where nothing is permitted except what was captured at the moment that the shutter was tripped. Or if you want to be identified as a purest, then identify your submissions as "ABSOLUTELY NO MANIPULATION".

Then the purists won't have anything to quibble about, will they? Except the quality of the manipulation.

I've a hunch that there would still be someone who might quibble about the quality of the original vision which existed at the moment of shutter release. Or even about certain brands of film or certain iso values being unfair because their specific camera doesn't support it.

It just seems to me, that it's sometimes obvious that there exists a certain rationalization for not knowing how to manipulate. The "IF-I-can't-do-it- then-it-isn't-fair" synopsis type of rationalization that may exist here to a slight extenct. And if that attitude were to prevail, then the playing field might be a more level playing field. AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE TO FEEL THAT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN AND DEFEND HOW HE VIEWS THE WORLD THROUGH HIS OWN PERSONAL SET OF EYES.

 

[canonrebel]

I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.

"Saturation" is a photographic term. A purest photographer would know this.

 

[canonrebel]

Jheeez! photoshop really makes some enemies here. I'm really detecting some personal sarcasm here. Is this going to be a feeding frenzy?

I personally see no diff in a little use of PS from using it a lot. Some of us may use it only to boost saturation a little, change the exposure a little, blur the background a little, but that's still cheating if PS is cheating if you claim to be a camera purist. and your past submissions may find you out.

When you add things like lightning bolts, cut and paste wolves, add clouds using the cloud filter in photoshop, etc... it ceases to be photography. The thing that gets me is you either post a photo saying no postwork was done (like anyone cares) or you post photos with deers pasted in and babies floating on the water then ***** when anyone says anything about photoshop.

Well said. Point well taken. I offer my apoligies.

 

[daniel_p]

Both of those pictures are available to view, and none of them is posted in any "critique thread".
Anyway, I've read some of your blabbering until I realised it has nothing to do with anything. I don't know what your problem is, but it looks to me like you're just "looking for trouble" so to speak. I mean, look how this thread started, and look what you have done of it. I mean literally no one was even talking to you, and you started running around screaming for no reason. So this the last reply you'll ever see from me, since I'm not interested in this kind of thing.

 

[canonrebel]

So this the last reply you'll ever see from me, since I'm not interested in this kind of thing.

Whew! Thank you, Sir!

Please remember that it wasn't I who "drew first blood"

You wouldn't have taken the cheap shot had you any idea that I would return fire. Surpprised, huh?

 

[Patrick]

These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs.

Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
1) That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.
2) The clouds are OBVIOUSLY fake, you can find repeating patterns in them if you look closely
3) The bush in the lower-right corner was obviously pasted there, you can see how it "fades" into the water
4) The author has not claimed it is an actual photograph (although I think he should have mentioned it isn't, as this is not a photoshop forum)

That should be enough, but you don't really need to analyze it, the overall look of the picture makes it obvious it's fake (it does for me anyway).

Probably all true but hey........Still Very Very Very COOL
Great job with the PS work.

 

[daniel_p]

Someone tell canonrebel that I'm not talking to him. And also ask him how does he figure that I "drew first blood"? By revealing that his picture was made with Photoshop? Was that offensive to him, was it a secret or something? Did he intend to pass it as an actual photograph? If that's not the case, then tell him I think he's deeply paranoid, because there was no reason for him to flip out. If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.

 

[Sharkbait]

Someone tell canonrebel that I'm not talking to him. And also ask him how does he figure that I "drew first blood"? By revealing that his picture was made with Photoshop? Was that offensive to him, was it a secret or something? Did he intend to pass it as an actual photograph? If that's not the case, then tell him I think he's deeply paranoid, because there was no reason for him to flip out. If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.

Man, how old are you??

 

[danalec99]

If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.

daniel_p, you seem to have a very good eye, and you have strong points regarding the image. BUT it would all have been heavily valued if he had posted the image in the Critique section. canonrebel never asked us to disect/critique the image when he posted it. All he mentioned was 'Walace Lake' .

Until a decree against heavily/moderately pshopped images is issued in this thread, I do not see one reason why we should blast someone who only but different from some of us. Aren't we all unique?!

 

[daniel_p]

LOL, I'm 25

daniel_p, you seem to have a very good eye, and you have strong points regarding the image. BUT it would all have been heavily valued if he had posted the image in the Critique section. canonrebel never asked us to disect/critique the image when he posted it. All he mentioned was 'Walace Lake' Smile

I see what you're saying, but please understand that it is a false perception that I critiqued anything. That post was addressed to people like the one who had posted previously, who were not sure whether the picture was processed in any way and to what degree, and its intention was to convince them that it was indeed a processed image. There is nothing in it that should cause you to believe it was intended as critique.

 

[sobi]

how much of this picture was done with bryce? I know a bryce rendering when i see one.

 

[danalec99]

LOL, I'm 25

daniel_p, you seem to have a very good eye, and you have strong points regarding the image. BUT it would all have been heavily valued if he had posted the image in the Critique section. canonrebel never asked us to disect/critique the image when he posted it. All he mentioned was 'Walace Lake' Smile

I see what you're saying, but please understand that it is a false perception that I critiqued anything. That post was addressed to people like the one who had posted previously, who were not sure whether the picture was processed in any way and to what degree, and its intention was to convince them that it was indeed a processed image. There is nothing in it that should cause you to believe it was intended as critique.

daniel_p, I did not say you critiqued the image. I said 'your points would have been heavily valued if it were in the Crit section'. Your tone just caught him off gaurd, which led to his reaction this way. Thats all!

There is no one to be blamed here.
You were merely addressing to, in your words

to who were not sure whether the picture was processed in any way and to what degree, and its intention was to convince them that it was indeed a processed image.

And he is just reacting to an unexpected blast which was raised unintentionally.

I'm sure we are mature enough to shake hands and move on.

Have a splendid day! :thumbsup:

 

[Lyanna]

I think this is all blown way out of proportion. Daniel_p, as the forum newbie, maybe you should think first and then post, and save heavy critiques for the appropriate - Critique - forum. And I also think that not speaking to Canonrebel simply because he retorted some of your remarks is kind of childish. Even if you are a 25 year old (or maybe especially).

Canonrebel, I think it is very clear how you see things and how you feel about things. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I like the shot, but not everyone might like it. I think you've stated your case, and maybe you can think about the effect of using caps in a post