- #1696294FruitBunsMemberMember since: August 2, 2009
Replies: 769FruitBuns September 22, 2018 at 8:36 am#1696312RonsolMemberMember since: July 29, 2010
Replies: 68Ronsol September 22, 2018 at 12:09 pm
I see that you have compensated for the slight overexposure which definitely improves the photo, but I don’t agree with having all the people removed. Without them the photo is of a number of large rocks, so what? But leaving the people in the shot gives a sense of scale that is missing without them. You know what Stonehenge is all about and how large the rocks are, but someone who knows nothing about the place would have no idea regarding how imposing it is, not having anything in the photo to gauge size against.
I would remove the pathway, the four groups in the foreground and the group of five in the background leaving only the couple in the background.#1696329gypsyspiritMemberMember since: November 26, 2007
Replies: 3207gypsyspirit September 22, 2018 at 1:58 pm
depends as to what one calls a ‘distraction’ fruitbuns. Personally I think in an image such as this that the people help clarify the dimensions and height of the stones. They add proportion.
Just reading note by Ronsol and yes…the path can go but the people are significant.
#1696334tabs41MemberMember since: August 24, 2010
- This reply was modified 8 months ago by gypsyspirit.
Replies: 712tabs41 September 22, 2018 at 3:12 pm
Doogie, it all depends on what you are removing. I will spend time removing power cables etc that are unavoidable at times but I always look for different angles to avoid obstructions if possible. Looking at the Stonehenge photo,s I can see both sides, we all try to get photo,s of monuments, buildings and scenes without the clutter but it,s not always possible. As gypsyspirit pointed out it gives perspective to the stones seeing people in the shot gives a comparison to the size but if you just want the monument unspoiled you have no option but to remove obstructions. That opens up a whole can of worms as to when is a photo not a photo but a photoshop creation. As technology moves on we create more and more possibilities, you cane remove anything, add anything and even import a different sky now if you want. Personaly I think if you are adding or subtracting from the original you are using artistic license and creating an image rather than photographing one.#1696347vale019MemberMember since: August 20, 2012
Replies: 22249vale019 September 22, 2018 at 4:54 pm
GypsySpirit – Beautiful photography – as per usual 🙂
The name of that plant is Abutilons.#1696349vale019MemberMember since: August 20, 2012
Replies: 22249vale019 September 22, 2018 at 4:59 pm
That opens up a whole can of worms as to when is a photo not a photo but a photoshop creation. As technology moves on we create more and more possibilities, you cane remove anything, add anything and even import a different sky now if you want. Personaly I think if you are adding or subtracting from the original you are using artistic license and creating an image rather than photographing one.
I totally agree, tabs#1696375gypsyspiritMemberMember since: November 26, 2007
Replies: 3207gypsyspirit September 22, 2018 at 5:25 pm
good point about artistic licence etc tabs41…..I have long felt minimal use of editing images is a preference but there are situations where manipulation is acceptable but you you are correct….it then becomes something different to a simple photograph.
Vale019….thanks for that…..I will note the name of it now.
Polly#1696410FruitBunsMemberMember since: August 2, 2009
Replies: 769FruitBuns September 22, 2018 at 9:22 pm
I wrote this some time ago, you may have read it.
My Philosophy on Photography
Photography has its beginnings in the Camera Obscurer. This in a simple form could be a darkened room with a pinhole in a blind which showed an image, of what was outside, on the opposite wall and upside down. This could be used by artists to help in making their pictures. This developed into a method of fixing the image, through Daguerreotypes to the negative of Fox Talbot, which enabled many copies to be made of the same image.
When I was in Bali I saw an artist, Caucasian, standing in his front garden painting a picture of the temple on the opposite side of the road. The temple was highly decorated and colourful as it was being prepared for a festival. I thought to myself, ‘lucky bloke, I bet he doesn’t paint in the power cables that would be draped across any picture I took’.
So I take pictures to record what I see and not what is there. I don’t see the power cables sweeping across a scene, or the street lamps in front of a building until I look at the photograph. So I am quite justified in taking them out.
The human eye is far more sensitive than either film or the sensor in a digital camera. So I see details in the dark parts of the picture that don’t appear to be on the image that is presented to me. So when I prepare a picture using imaging software, Photoshop Elements in my case, I make a lot of use of something that will bring out the details in the dark areas of the picture. In Elements I click on Image>Adjustments and choose Shadow/Highlight. There is very little that can be done in the highlight areas of the picture, once it is white you can’t get any detail back into the picture, you may have heard the term ‘blown highlights’. There is also the old photographer’s adage ‘expose for the highlights’. So white flowers are very difficult to photograph, just as black people are.
Please bear this in mind when I start making comments about your pictures.
I prefer to control the pictures I take using my computer rather than relying on the one in the camera.
I am preparing a talk to my Probus Club on Photoshop. I imagine with some members who don’t know what Photoshop does have a very negative attitude towards it. You must not alter the image. I have a lady friend photographer who thought, and may be still does, that a .jpg image was a ‘true’ image and you should not shoot in RAW and then edit the picture.
Having gone through editing light to give a HDR image, sharpening, and then converging verticals I was planning on ending with the Stone Henge comparison, is it going too far. As your responses have indicated it is debatable.
Thanks for your comments.#1696461doogieMemberMember since: March 27, 2006
Replies: 6312doogie September 23, 2018 at 5:26 pm
So that my point about cloning is not lost in the woods I will repost my comment about it t0 tabs41 …….
Do you ever clone out unwanted clutter in an image? I do a lot of that to rid unavoidable matter that adds nothing to the primary subject.
To demonstrate my point I will attach an original and my enhancement to it by cropping and cloning out the flax that remained in the image adding nothing but distraction within it in my opinion.
This photo is a view overlooking Matiatia Bay Waiheki Island.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.#1696488tabs41MemberMember since: August 24, 2010
Replies: 712tabs41 September 23, 2018 at 7:09 pm
Interesting point of view FruitBuns. Most photographers will use the clone to remove unwanted clutter, a simple process if the background is easy to select a clone point.
I shoot in RAW as you do, this gives me more room to maneuver when I process my photo,s in Lihgtroom and Photoshop or ON1 Photo RAW which I am trying at the moment. Here I can actually bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows to show what I was seeing at the time.
The Stonehenge shots are a good example to demonstrate the point. We all dream of shots like that with no clutter, it may be a bit of a fudge but it looks so much better.
To make my point about when is a photo not a photo I recently entered an on line competition which was for “Aircraft in flight”, the first prize was awarded to a photograph of a modern Jet Fighter emerging from a heavy cloud background at a million miles an hour, a great shot until you start to think “How did he get up there in that position to take it”. I asked him that very question, he openly admitted that the aircraft was in fact hanging from the roof in a museum in Paris and he had cloned it on to the cloud background. It was so obvious to anyone with a brain yet they still gave him first prize. “When is an aircraft in flight not an aircraft in flight, when it,s hanging from the roof in a museum”
Doogie Another excellent example Matiatia Bay, I must admit I only process mine this far If I have a specific use for them like on line competitions etc.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.