I will feel better if someone who has done the Mt,Rainier wild flower thing can assure me that they have seen the combination of wild flowers seen on the cover of Outdoor Photographer this week.
I have never found Tiger Lilies growing in the open with other carpet type flowers.
These are not carpet type flowers. They are more like disturbed roadside flowers from lower elevations with some mountain flowers mixed in. The person who identified the flowers did not do a good job. I see Columbia Lilies, Ox Eye Daisies, Lupine, Paintbrush, and Trefoil. I definitely see no buttercups or asters. The Lilies are probably more than waist high and hardly a carpet. Outdoor Photographer knows how to print a magazine, but it often seems that they don't know much about the outdoors or photography. I doubt that this was actually taken in the National Park. The lilies do often occur on roadsides and clearcuts which are pretty open and are associated with a wide variety of flowers. The image would have been a lot better if he had set his grad in the right place.
Posted by Mark Windom on March 13, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Let's hope it's the real thing. It's unfortunate that in today's digital age we have to question what we see and I'm questioning what I see here. Maybe it's just ignorance on my part....
So ya made me curious and I walked the 100 yards in the rain to the mailbox and retrieved my copy of OP. The image was taken by Art Wolfe some years ago based on his using film and an older lens.
In looking at the image I see that it was taken from the north side of Mount Rainier looking south at the mountain (Little Tahoma is to the left of the summit of Rainier). I think the mountain is too far away from the photographer for the photographer to be in the park itself. I can see what appears to be a logging road just below the far ridge which only helps to substantiate my above assumption. The rolling slope in the middle is free of trees which to my eye indicates a clear cut. I can also see where the GND reduced the exposure of some of the Columbines and darkened the shadow areas of the ridge beyond. So I don't think any digital slight of hand occurred.
Assuming all of the above the ground was most likely disturbed by logging. And the rainy season prior to bloom was good and wet. So I don't think this was doctored in any way but it isn't in a pure sense "natural". The hand of man has had its way...
So does the impact of the hand of man make it a "bad" image? I'd be pleased to have it in my portfolio and I bet it would sell as a print just fine.
Posted by Jack Garrett on March 14, 2008 at 1:22 AM
I've never been to Mt Rainier but I just did a Google search for tiger lilies there and found several references to them. If Art Wolfe was the photographer, I would almost bet there is no digital "magic" with flowers on his part. Hope this helps.
Jack
Posted by Jack Graham on March 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I remember back a few years when there was a bear on the cover ( can't remember who the photo was) , but anyway, he said it was shot in the wild, with a fairly small focal length lens.... turned out the bear was captive all the time. Since then there have been NO bears on the cover. OP does some strange things sometimes.
JG
Posted by Curtis Knight on March 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Art took a lot of heat a few years back for cloning wildlife into some of his landscapes. He didn't try to hide it, but he got smacked just the same. So he is not immune to the digital magic temptation. he's just like the rest of us.
I read the related article this morning. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to rattle off a list of the flowers in the photo. I think it was just a statement about some of what can be found in and around the park. There is a boat load of different flowers in that shot, and only 4 or 5 different species were mentioned.
Posted by Tom Kloster on March 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I posted a similar topic last Spring about a photo of Triple Falls with some out-of-place flowers in the foreground. It was in a calendar by a high-profile photographer, so it sort of shocked me to see it apparently faked (I've been hiking up there for 30 years, and have never seen paintbrush growing on the overlook - nor would I expect to!)
Similarly, I've seen another calendar shot from a Portland professional of Fairy Falls with a huge, blooming rhododendron in the foreground - again, no rhododendrons there, nor would I expect them. So it's always a bit jarring to see very well-known photographers doing this, and makes me look at their other work with a tainted view. In the end, that's the main argument for not going there for pros - it reflects poorly on what might otherwise be a very solid body of work.
When I first saw the Tiger Lilies in that photo, I questioned if it was real. I've seen many lilies in the wild, but never in a carpet of flowers like that. I assumed it was out of the park, I saw the logging road, and thought...maybe. In this digital age I still wondered, and that kind of bothers me.
David M. Cobb
Posted by Jack Garrett on March 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM
It amazes me that with all the beautiful scenery that we have in this country that anyone would "add" to make an image imply something that just isn't there. I can understand color correction and minor adjustments to make an image appear more real since the camera itself has limitations but to put flowers and bushes in places they don't exist is going a little too far in my opinion. Maybe next year we will see ocean waves crashing into the rocks of Death Valley!
I, for one, do not believe that the photo was faked. On looking at the paintbrush again, I realize that it is not magenta paintbrush, as I had originally surmised, so all of these flowers belong together. This same assemblage could be found in the Columbia Gorge or on the Oregon Coast, but not say, at Panorama Point. The flower identification is basically just useful information about how the image was captured.
Posted by John Williams on March 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Well said Tom, that's the best reason for not going there. Why cast doubt on the rest of your work?
I am actually fine with doctored photos as long as it is stated. For example, in a John Shaw book I have he clearly states if the animal is in a "controlled" setting or not. Obviously stating that you doctored a photo or setting minimizes the appreciation most of us have for it, but credit needs to be given where it is due. (Even for someone as limited as me, spending a couple of hours in Photoshop in no way compares with climbing TDH over and over again to get THE shot .)
Posted by Tom Kloster on March 18, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Very true, John!
In the interest of fairness, here's the image of Triple Falls that I was referring to. It sure looks like paintbrush growing on that little bluff, and it's not impossible that it would grow there. But maybe I'm judging too harshly. I've just never seen it growing in this spot, but maybe it once did, who knows?
Discussion
12 repliesI have never found Tiger Lilies growing in the open with other carpet type flowers.
Am I offbase asking this question here?
In looking at the image I see that it was taken from the north side of Mount Rainier looking south at the mountain (Little Tahoma is to the left of the summit of Rainier). I think the mountain is too far away from the photographer for the photographer to be in the park itself. I can see what appears to be a logging road just below the far ridge which only helps to substantiate my above assumption. The rolling slope in the middle is free of trees which to my eye indicates a clear cut. I can also see where the GND reduced the exposure of some of the Columbines and darkened the shadow areas of the ridge beyond. So I don't think any digital slight of hand occurred.
Assuming all of the above the ground was most likely disturbed by logging. And the rainy season prior to bloom was good and wet. So I don't think this was doctored in any way but it isn't in a pure sense "natural". The hand of man has had its way...
So does the impact of the hand of man make it a "bad" image? I'd be pleased to have it in my portfolio and I bet it would sell as a print just fine.
Jack
JG
I read the related article this morning. I didn't get the impression that they were trying to rattle off a list of the flowers in the photo. I think it was just a statement about some of what can be found in and around the park. There is a boat load of different flowers in that shot, and only 4 or 5 different species were mentioned.
Similarly, I've seen another calendar shot from a Portland professional of Fairy Falls with a huge, blooming rhododendron in the foreground - again, no rhododendrons there, nor would I expect them. So it's always a bit jarring to see very well-known photographers doing this, and makes me look at their other work with a tainted view. In the end, that's the main argument for not going there for pros - it reflects poorly on what might otherwise be a very solid body of work.
Tom
David M. Cobb
Jack
I am actually fine with doctored photos as long as it is stated. For example, in a John Shaw book I have he clearly states if the animal is in a "controlled" setting or not. Obviously stating that you doctored a photo or setting minimizes the appreciation most of us have for it, but credit needs to be given where it is due. (Even for someone as limited as me, spending a couple of hours in Photoshop in no way compares with climbing TDH over and over again to get THE shot
In the interest of fairness, here's the image of Triple Falls that I was referring to. It sure looks like paintbrush growing on that little bluff, and it's not impossible that it would grow there. But maybe I'm judging too harshly. I've just never seen it growing in this spot, but maybe it once did, who knows?