Outdoor Photographer July '09 cover shot

I call Barbra Streisand (B.S.) Have you seen the cover? It's a beautiful shot of Delicate Arch by Art Wolfe, with the moon right in the center of the opening. But something doesn't add up. First, to get all the arch in from this low and close vantage point, you'd need a wide-angle lens, which would render the moon much smaller. Second, the moon in this shot is perfectly round, indicating absolute full phase. That means the moon should be right at the horizon as the sun sets, yet here it is, waaaay up in the sky, with no indication of being a few days before the full moon, as it would need to be to be this high in the sky. If this were real, I'd expect a more waxing phase, not so perfectly round. Third, the moon is too tonally neutral, as if taken at night when only the reflected light of the sun affects its coloring. When I've shot the moon against a blue sky like this, it generally picks up a lot of the bluish color of the sky.

My guess is, this is a combination of two shots. One or both were taken on Velvia, and I suspect he combined elements after the fact.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is troubling, IMO, that the editors at OP chose the image unquestionably, even marveling at its uniqueness in the "Cover Shot" description on page 12. It sure goes a long way toward explaining the uniqueness of the image that it was created in a photographic test tube rather than in nature. If I'm correct, Art Wolfe owes OP editors an explanation, and maybe even an apology. Why? Because this kind of Photoshop magic, by such a well-established pro, puts the magazine's credibility at risk. Heck, they even take a pot shot at Michael Fatali's idiotic mishap with the Duraflame logs. If they're that worried about photographic integrity, this shot should've never made it to the cover without a disclaimer.

Thoughts?

Philosophically I agree with you Todd. I read the column and accepted it as being a "found" photo because that is what the caption leads you to believe. I hope it isn't a composite as you suspected it because if it is then they should state that.

Nice catch Todd! I pretty much agre. Even though I've never been there, I believe there's a bowl or an area below the arch and further back where possibly a 200mm could have produced the perspective. However, the article states a 17-35mm (with 35mm analog, so crop factor.) Plus, I agree the moon's luminance at that position and a <full> moon just doesn't make sense. But I didn't catch it.

Lon

The cover also gave me reason to pause as I contemplated it during the return trip from mailbox. I too agree with Todd's observations. Perhaps Art has forgotten about the zebra debacle

I'm right there with ya, Todd... I certainly don't mind manipulation in proper context but there is an appropriate place for it.

And the cover of OP has traditionally been regarded as featuring "realism" in nature photography. Maybe their policies are changing, who knows? IF the photo is a composite, I think it would be a good idea for OP (and even AW himself) to provide an explanation.

Otherwise, as "art" (no pun intended) a composite shouldn't matter. In a photo magazine though, where readers are always trying to mimic shots they see there, it's a disservice.

Maybe what matters most is the context/audience/social environment in which composite images are displayed. If Art sold a poster of this, and explained the technique, no big deal.

But again, OP itself has long had a stance of trying to portray the minimalist, realist side of outdoor shooting., and that's what their audience expects.

If you're right (I haven't even seen the image, nor would I know the intricacies of the moon phase etc.) I would hope there would be some follow up and productive dialog about this.

You mentioned Fatali; there was another issue regarding his shot of the Teapot with a full (or near full) moon, which several people came forward explaining how it was not possible. Sadly, soon after the hullaballoo, the Teapot mysteriously "fell" down.

Integrity among photographers is important. If something is not "real" it should be presented as such.

Lying is lying after all. With an honest approach. making a beautiful image should not need to be put under such scrutiny, but if someone pretends it's something it's not, it's natural that people will be pissed off.

What ever happened to the old Found View guidelines? I miss them.

Nat, the Teapot shot you're referring to ("Back of Beyond") actually showed a crescent moon nested in the intricacies of the stone feature, and I called B.S. on that one, too. You can't have sweet near-frontal alpenglow light on a subject (sun at your back) and have a crescent moon in the distance. The very nature of a crescent moon puts it on the side of the sky with the sun, hence we only see a sliver of moon lit because the rest of the moon has its dark side pointed at us. That shot was on the cover of some book where different photographers detailed how they captured one shot, and Fatali was purposefully vague about his. And I had the same problem with that instance as I do with the OP cover, namely, that it is intentionally sold to us as the way it is, when it is not. If you want to create a double-exposure, fine, but don't misrepresent it. I've done a couple of them myself (count 'em, two), and in the context of them being in a pretty-picture calendar like the ones I publish, who cares? But a magazine cover or featured in a book about how images are made? That's a big, fat FAIL.

For those who haven't seen the cover of OP, you can see an uncropped version here.

Good catch, Todd.

Hmmm. I've seen a very similar shot by David Muench. Now he may have double exposed it on film (I should have asked him), but he's never struck me as one to mess with trying that stuff.
Guess I'm saying that this shot by Art Wolfe isn't beyond all possibility.

rod

Rod, the Muench shot you mention is on the cover of his incredible "Utah" book by Graphic Arts, and I would contend that his shot is the real deal. The image looks like post-sunset, twilight light, the arch is shot at a more oblique angle from a greater distance, and the moon looks just like it should, not quite full and taking on the color of the sky around it. In fact, I would use Muench's shot side by side with Wolfe's shot to prove my point.

John M., thanks for the link. I looked for the cover on OP's site, but oddly, it didn't pop up. The shot's even more ghastly in its original form. I shouldn't cast stones for something I've been guilty of, but polarizers should be used for good, not for evil.

Rod - Muench is no stranger to double-exposures either though. The cover of his book Primal Forces is a double exposure for example but it's so obvious that there is no way it could be deceptive.

http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Forces-David-Muench-Signature/dp/1558685227

Firstly I haven't seen the OP cover shot and am writing on the assumption that its the same shot in the link mentioned by John Mumaw. IMO:

if the image is taken at the 35mm end of 17-35mm and say also cropped , won't the moon look the same size as seen in the image? It would be great if we have a reference image of full moon taken by a 17-35mm lens at the 35mm end.

i searched google images for "Delicate Arch, Utah moon" and came across one image where the moon does look the same size as seen in AW's image. No idea if the image on the link mentioned above is a composite

I took one look at the OP cover shot and immediately suspected some amount of PhotoShopping post processing was done here. After viewing the shot posted by John Mumaw, I'm not sure now. It does appear that some level of saturation or vibrance was done to the OP cover when you look at the original posted by John. Still, if you take the image for what it is, it still has alot of "wow" factor going for it composite or not.

I don't see what y'all are seeing. First the moon reaches full stage at a particular moment in relation to the Sun/Earth, not the horizon. It can happen at any time of day or night depending solely on where it is relative to the Sun/Earth line including very high in the sky. Second it is hard for the human eye to distinguish when it is exactly full VS nearly or slightly past. I did a screen capture, blew it up in PS and, although it is difficult to be certain at the resolution and scale of the web photo, I measured it at 28 pixels high by 29 wide which fits with the height of the sun in the sky. Last, the photo as shown on Art's website does have a blue cast. I ran a sampler (Takecolor.exe) over the image of the moon and the blue channel was higher than the red & green on all parts of the image, highlight and shadow. OTOH if you'll pay my expenses I volunteer to do an on-site survey to be sure.

Jim, while you are absolutely correct that the full phase is an instant in time and happens regardless of where the horizon is, in order to shoot the moon looking nearly full as high in the sky as it is in Art's shot would have to be a day or two before the full moon. I contend that you would see a marked difference in the shape of the moon for it to be as high in the sky as it is in this photo.

And Kedar, that shot you linked is another Art Wolfe shot, and looks like it was taken at the same general time. In that one it is especially noticeable that the lens used was a wide-angle, and because of that, the moon should be MUCH smaller in the frame.

Here's my guess as to how it was done, because I once tried this. Load a roll of film and mark the sprocket hole with a pen. Shoot shots of the moon in a night sky, positioning it somewhere easily remembered, like dead center. Rewind film, reload it, making sure the marked sprocket hole is in the same spot, and go out and shoot images, making sure to place the moon in a blank section of sky. On slide film, you'll never notice.

Here's a shot of the moon setting, viewed from the summit of Mount Evans, taken 7 hours and 16 minutes after the actual full phase is achieved. At sunset on the previous evening, the sun would've been right at the horizon, like it is here. Note also that this was taken at 195mm on a crop sensor camera, making the equivalent focal length 312mm.

Here's a shot taken a day or two after the full moon, taken with a 50mm lens on my RB67, roughly equivalent to a 28mm on a full-frame sensor.

Here's moonrise shortly after a lunar eclipse, taken at 400mm on a FF sensor.

Here's a link to the aforementioned Muench shot. Judge for yourself. Imagine standing right below the arch, looking up at it, shooting wide enough to take it all in, and have the moon be as large as in Wolfe's shot. OTOH, look at Muench's shot, taken from a greater distance, with a tele lens, showing a full moon just after sunset.
LINK

Ok remember I'm on your side. But an apology? Come on Todd, life is to short to be crawling inside the minds of other to plant your thoughts. I understand you are totally disgusted with OP for "Misrepresenting" nature. Understood. I for one am actually glad you pointed it out.
Now go out and make your own magical shot. Have fun, after all it's why we love photography in the first place isn't it.

Brad, I'm not disgusted with OP or Wolfe. I'm merely disclosing what I think is fakery passed off as real. And I can comment on this AND go out and take pictures. One does not exclude the other.

agree with Todd that the moon should have been MUCH smaller with 17-35mm lens.

Also if an image is a composite it SHOULD be mentioned irrespective of who makes it. Also if at all its a composite image and not mentioned there needs to be on record clarification, else publishers shouldn't ask for any specs of an image and publish them.

I thought of another piece of evidence that paints this as a composite. Shooting a full moonrise, the sun will always be directly at your back. In this cover shot, the arch is fairly strongly sidelit.

The side lighting is what immediately gave it away to me.. Also, knowing the orientation of the arch, the view from that angle is probably north of northeast and I doubt he moon could ever be captured thru that view. Note that Muench's is from the other side looking west southwest. His is very believable. I doubt OP would ever challenge an Art Wolf image.

In October 2007 I was at Delicate Arch with an almost full Moon showing. I was at the traditional location at the top of the rim across from the arch. I hoped the Moon would move enough to show up over the arch, but alas, it could not "move" enough. It stayed well above the arch's top. I have a few frames with the Moon and arch in the same frame. However, I never printed them as 1. the Moon was so far above the arch as the impact I was looking for was lost and 2. exposing the arch properly meant way over exposing the Moon so it looked like a pure white dot and 3. the Moon's size was so small as to have little impact in the image. I was using a 1.3 crop camera and 17-40 lens.

The image in question "could" have the moon positioned where it is if the photographer was down lower off the opposite rim more into the "bowl" to the right of the arch and shooting up. with a longer lens. I do wonder how the exposure of both the arch and Moon is excellent.

Art Wolfe had another OP cover shot in the last year or so that had wildflowers in the foreground & Mt Rainier in the distance which to me seemed like two unrelated shots combined. Couldn't quite find a copy of it on the web, though..

If it's the shot I'm thinking, I thought that was plausible. Seems like he had the flowers on the edge of that popular lake that reflects Rainier really well. I've seen other pics of that, and witnessed that type of thing myself at Maroon Lake and other lakes here in CO. But that's the thing — If he keeps trying to slip these things past editors and gets found out, many editors and fellow photographers will look at a whole bunch of his pictures with a suspicious eye. I wouldn't want to create that kind of scrutiny or suspicion of my work.

Todd, I don't think it's the same shot. The cover I'm thinking of was taken on the north side of the mountain and it's subtle but there's a road cut in the middle distance of the photo.

EDIT: the April 2008 cover is the one I am referring to.

I was too young to have read the Galen Rowell column where he outs Wolfe on the manipulations but I think they should re-publish it in the next issue.

I don't expect reality on the cover of Outdoor Photographer. However: I hadn't read the description until you mentioned it. Yes, it implies that the photographer's unique ability to shoot (wide angle and telephoto at the same time?) at the same place as others (with mere mortal capabilities) are to be admired. The pot shot at Fatali is supposed to make us even more in awe of Wolfey's superhuman powers: look, magic light with no fires. Wolfe probably shot these frames years ago and some staff member who wasn't even born yet answered the technical questions. He has had people working on his images with Photoshop for years. I have no problem with that at all. It WOULD be disappointing if Art insisted that this art was not art, but that probably wouldn't happen. This all makes me wonder if photography is finally being accepted as an art, but we that we regret the consequence.

Pete D.

and it is ironic that my last post in this forum was about how to combine two images into one (ok "developments" but that ain't so different).

The photo is absolutely fake or a double exposure. That photo of Delicate Arch was taken looking southwest in the evening. I have a shot of the arch taken on the exact same line, but higher in the bowl. I'm sure of the orientation. The full moon would be in the eastsoutheast at that time and could not possibly appear in the frame. That is beside the obvious issue of the relative size of the moon and the arch.

In Muench's photo, the shot was taken further west on the bowl looking to the southeast and the moon certainly could physically be in that position and the camera could produce that relative size. Still I think there is a probability that it is a double exposure. Muench is known for his use of LF and to get the moon this size, you would need something like an 500mm or longer lens, or some major cropping. I'm not sure there is enough space in the bowl to get that FL and I don't think that angle could be captured from the ridge.

This photo like Todd's example shows that the relative size is out of whack in the Wolf example. It was taken with a 210mm on 4X5 film, roughly equivalent to a 60mm on 35mm. Then it was cropped to a roughly 2X5 ratio. The moon is tiny compared to the Wolf example and this is nearly 2X the equivalent focal length.

Like Todd, if it were shot on slide film I think a double exposure was used with the moon shot in the night sky on slide film, then reloaded and shot again.

I don't necessarily take issue with the shot, or that OP has chosen to use it on their cover. But to present it as a single exposure bad practice in my opinion. Then again, I stopped subscribing to OP several years ago. I felt the content was quite thin and repetitive. I subscribe to several other photo magazines, but only pick up OP on rare occasion.

Ummmm....maybe someone should ASK Wolfe about it! :) Also, lots of discussion about the "horizon" and additional photos. Seems to me that the moons shown are well ABOVE the horizon as the images show the moon over the top of mountain ranges...which is not the actual Earth horizon. The only way to see the Earth horizon is if you are at the looking at the curvature of the Earth and you are staring over "flat" land or you are looking over the ocean with no vertical obstruction....a mountain would be an obstruction! That's my opinion...good or bad :)

Troup

Ummmm... I did ask him. But I haven't gotten an answer to my email yet. I'm sure some will interpret that as a sign of guilt. Personally I really don't care if Art did some Photoshoping of the image. I'm in the business of making beautiful landscape images, not evidence for court hearings. Anyone who kids themselves into believing that a 2D single sense (vision) segment of a 3D five sense scene is literally true... Well, let's just say it isn't. I go for an expression of what it felt like to be there rather than evidence that I was there. YMMV

The point is not about the use of Photoshop but lying about the image implying that it was a "found" image. That is a big no-no in editorial and journalism ethics.

I understand what you are saying Richard but I've never regarded OP as "journalism" in the sense of Newsweek, Time, etc. and there is nothing in their submission guidelines http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/submissions.html that says or even suggests that they only publish "found" landscapes according to some established set of rules. It seems to me that you are applying a standard to OP that the publishers do not. If you are never asked "did you (fill in manipulation of your choice) you are not "lying" by not listing every manipulation you did. FWIW all photographs are manipulated in one way or another and we each have our own standards for what we feel is appropriate to our own work but we can't require others to restrict themselves to our standards. Buyers can stipulate standards but judging from their submission guidelines the point of debate here is not one of OP's standards.

I agree with Todd that the cover photo is a double exposure for the reasons that he stated.
To get a shot of the full moon in Delicate Arch, without the arch being a silhouette, you have
to be in the bowl at moonrise when the moon rises about 30 minutes before sunset, and
when it is at an azimuth of about 121 degrees east of true north. This only happens in May
or August, but not every year. I am attaching a link to a shot on flickr when those conditions occurred on May 15, 1992 (the day before the full moon). From the location
that Art Wolfe took his shot, with the lighting that he had, and the height of the moon,
the shot is not possible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/21103750@N06/?saved=1. (80mm lens).

Hey Allen, I haven't seen you post at NPN before. If I missed you, shame on me. If you're new here, welcome! I've admired your work for many, many years!

As for asking Wolfe, I also sent him an e-mail (granted, I asked him why it is that when I look at the shot, I'm suddenly hungry for a sandwich!), and have not received a response. But he's a world-traveler, and who knows when he checks his e-mail.

As for art/manipulation vs. journalism, my biggest problem with this, as reiterated by Pete, Mel and Richard, is the way OP characterized the shot as some miracle shot by a renowned pro, so far above the abilities of us mere mortals. And as despicable as the boneheaded move Fatali pulled with his fake fire damage, I thought the pot shot at him was really, really tacky.

The truth finally came out:

http://blog.artwolfe.com/

I also contacted the editors of Outdoor Photographer early last week asking if they had a response. As expected, a typical political response - NOTHING.

I love being right...

Hey Todd,

Perhaps you weren't quite as 'right' as you think. Re, your comment "Art Wolfe owes OP editors an explanation, and maybe even an apology"

From Art's own blog:

"OP was informed but that nugget of information didn’t make it into the caption."

Apparently Art doesn't owe the OP editors anything. Now if your beef is with OP, have at it. :) In the meantime, maybe someone owes Art an apology, no? :)

Cheers

Carl

Good catch, Carl, you're absolutely right. I was talking about the cover photo being a double-exposure, but since I did initially suggest an apology from Art, the only apologies now should be from OP to Art, and to its readers.

Hey Todd,

I haven't read the OP snippet on the image, but if they've indicated it's a single exposure, I'm fully with you that they should apologize, particularly given that they were apparently told beforehand that the image was more than one exposure. But that's OP for ya, eh?

Personally, I think every cover I've seen lately from OP ought come with an apology from the mag, to their readers, to the photographers, and to the scenes represented.

Cheers

Carl

What am I missing? Looking at the link provided by John Mumaw on the Art Wolfe site the caption to the right specifically calls this photo "A full moon hovers in the void of Delicate Arch, Utah (in-camera double exposure)." Maybe OP didn't call it this but Art's site sure does.

Art's site does now, but it didn't on June 26th when John provided the link.

Ok. I guess Art and OP need to provide an explanation. I guess I'll take Art's site off my Favorites list.

Glenn, if you haven't seen it already, you may want to checkout Art's entry on his blog regarding the OP cover shot and the controversy it created.

http://blog.artwolfe.com/2009/07/outdoor-photographer-cover/

Just did. Thanks Adam. Art is pretty Savvy and I'm sure he would have recognized that this was an obvious double exposure before he submitted it to OP and would be readily recognized by others as such. Therefore, kind of buy Art's position on the issue.