I'm working on an image that I've placed a moon and its reflection into the scene and would like to post it in the Landscape gallery when completed to get max critiques. I don't see any posting guidelines forbidding it. Should I post it in the Photo Art Gallery? How do you all feel about composites as landscape images if they're presented as such and not misrepresented?
Bruce - good question, and I don't have an answer for you right at the moment, but I sent a group email to the other Landscape Mods. Please allow us to discuss this amongst ourselves and with Jim and we'll get back to you as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience.
Here's my opinion for what it's worth. If you post an image that looks like you stuck something in it from another image more than likely people will say something to that effect. That in itself doesn't make it right or wrong, just not done very well. On the other hand if you post an image that looks good in all respects I for one couldn't care less if it is a so called "composite" of multiple images. There wouldn't even be a need to say anything to the effect because it would make no difference.
Images are presented here on a regular basis that may or may not be composites or blends of various images and no one is the wiser if done properly. It's not about trying to "trick" someone, it's simply a willingness to expression a visual creation that the creator is willing to share.
As it may be apparent I believe some people get way to caught up in the whole "oh that's not real it's been manipulated" mindset and totally loose sight of what photography as an art is and thus take the "art" out of photography. But to each their own, some want to create, some document and others incorporate a blend of the two. I say wait a while and post it and see if any can even tell.
I’m not sure if this helps but here is my honest opinion. Blends are ok for overcoming the limitations of the camera and sometimes the lens. For example, pasting a properly exposed moon shot at 50mm into a wide angle comp, or blending two exposures for dynamic range.
Pasting items into the comp that were not there is photo art.
The moon was captured in the original image but it was the size of a small pea, now it's the size of a walnut. Is that still photo art?
My take would be yes. Increasing the moon's size to larger than it could actually be would make it photo art.
...the whole "oh that's not real it's been manipulated" mindset...
In the high art world, there isn't much of that. Some of the highest grossing photos of all time have been cloned, composited, manipulated, etc. There's very little expectation for something to be real, and a "photo" just means that a camera was used in the art piece's creation at some point.
However, in much of photography the viewer comes in with certain expectations of whether or not something could actually be viewed without a camera. There is a documentary aspect to photography for most people, like it or not. And this is especially true in nature photography, I think.
That's the reason for the Photo Art gallery in the first place, and a reason for the various categories here. To differentiate between scenes that could be viewed (with, of course, a lot of grey area there) versus things that are created outside of the actual photo. We don't HAVE to differentiate it that way... we do it because a lot of people (myself included) like having it differentiated that way.
Personally, if you show me a stunning vista, and I really like it, then later find out that the sky is from one continent, and the mountain is from another, and the lake doesn't even really exist, I'd be very disappointed (and would not like the photo then).
"There is a documentary aspect to photography for most people, like it or not. And this is especially true in nature photography, I think."
I am in agreement with this, especially the second part. I believe that composited images belong in Photo Art, but who am I to say? I am curious as to what the moderators have to say about this topic.
Good question Bruce and thanks for asking. We've tossed this around as a team to come up with an answer. And the answer might come across as a little vague, and it's intended that way. We don't want to be forum police and our job is really just trying to make sure folks get along and that there is some sort of differentiation between galleries so folks know where to post their images. And actually Jim set the guidelines this way to try and prevent the inevitable discussions and arguments about what is "manipulation" or "Photo Art" or defining a Landscape image; opinions run the gamut and no one would ever agree.
One of the main guidelines too that always gets overlooked is that it's up to the member to post their image in the "most appropriate" gallery. Of course that is subjective, but really each of us should take that to heart. If you have significantly altered an image for effect, it probably belongs in PA. If you're trying to depict a natural image, just "adjusting" elements but not altering the context of the landscape, then it's probably ok in Landscape too.
In general, a composited moon has been considered Photo Art. I'm referring to a moon from a different time, place not related to the scene where the moon didn't exist in the first place. Now, please note I'm only using this as an example of why it's important to keep the guidelines vague - I'm NOT using this example as a means of starting a debate.... ;-) But for example, one could argue that photographing a scene at sunset, leaving the camera in place for 4 hours and then photograph the same scene as the moon or Milky way appears in the scene in a second image, then blended for a final image, is a composite. Technically, that's true just like any other multi-exposure blend, pano - stitch, whatever. What I think we're looking for in Landscape is a reasonable rendition of a natural landscape. It's also about intent of the photographer, and that we just can't, nor do we want to, regulate.
Bruce, from your just posted description, ie. placing a somewhat larger moon (from the use of a longer focal length, "peanut to a walnut,") within the same scene, same time, is probably pretty common, not as frequently disclosed, but also common and usually accepted. It's those gigantic 10X moons superimposed behind the GG Bridge, bald eagle silhouette, giant moon, etc. - you know the images I'm talking about, that are clearly not real and certainly would belong in Photo Art.
Just from your description, it's unlikely that any of the moderators would move your image and we certainly appreciate the disclosure too. Clearly you're trying to depict a natural scene and not some altered reality. In the end it's going to be image independent; just try and remember to make the best choice. Of course it's not always black and white and we'll move the image if needed at the moderator's discretion. We move a few and miss many. Just trying to keep the "spirit of NPN" in tact for the members.
If you or any other member has any question at all about where to place an image, please don't hesitate to send any moderator a note, include the image or a link and ask for an opinion if you're not sure.
“Richard- The moon was captured in the original image but it was the size of a small pea, now it's the size of a walnut Is that still photo art?”
Actually the idea of pasting the 50MM moon into the wide angle shot was to try to overcome the unrealistic size of a moon shot at 16MM. I thought that a 50MM moon would be the closest to how the eye sees it and not enlarged, thus making the overall image look more like how the eye really saw scene.
Oh gosh, does this mean that simply using a wide angle lens is photo art? That’s it…. I’m selling all of my lenses with the exception of the 50MM.
Posted by David Bostedo on July 31, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Actually the idea of pasting the 50MM moon into the wide angle shot was to try to overcome the unrealistic size of a moon shot at 16MM
I'd (emphasis on the "I") say that there's nothing unrealistic about the moon captured at 16mm, since you're also capturing more of the surrounding landscape. So everything (assuming there isn't lots of distortion) is in the proper size ratio to how your eye would see it. Making it larger may better reflect the emphasis you have on the moon in your mind as you view that scene, but it doesn't overcome any sort of technical limitation or inaccuracy.
That being said, I know several people who have been unhappy with their moon photos (even while chimping with the moon right there in front of them), and don't understand how you get one where the moon seems larger/more important. I don't know if that's because the image doesn't match their imagination, the effect of the moon's brightness/prevalence, or if they've just seen too many images with the moon artificially enlarged. I suspect it's all three.
And all of THAT being said, I think Lon's take on it above is great.
OK, that falls in line with my thinking pretty much. If memory serves I think I shot the scene at about 27mm and the moon at 300mm, although the shots were taken at different places and a couple months apart. The size of the moon is probably possible and if the final image seems unreal it's probably due to poor processing regarding the composite more than anything else. When I'm done I'll post it in PA and the PNW regional forum although it'll get fewer views but maybe not fewer commets.
Discussion
11 repliesImages are presented here on a regular basis that may or may not be composites or blends of various images and no one is the wiser if done properly. It's not about trying to "trick" someone, it's simply a willingness to expression a visual creation that the creator is willing to share.
As it may be apparent I believe some people get way to caught up in the whole "oh that's not real it's been manipulated" mindset and totally loose sight of what photography as an art is and thus take the "art" out of photography. But to each their own, some want to create, some document and others incorporate a blend of the two. I say wait a while and post it and see if any can even tell.
Pasting items into the comp that were not there is photo art.
This being said… I love photo art!
Richard- The moon was captured in the original image but it was the size of a small pea, now it's the size of a walnut.
My take would be yes. Increasing the moon's size to larger than it could actually be would make it photo art.
In the high art world, there isn't much of that. Some of the highest grossing photos of all time have been cloned, composited, manipulated, etc. There's very little expectation for something to be real, and a "photo" just means that a camera was used in the art piece's creation at some point.
However, in much of photography the viewer comes in with certain expectations of whether or not something could actually be viewed without a camera. There is a documentary aspect to photography for most people, like it or not. And this is especially true in nature photography, I think.
That's the reason for the Photo Art gallery in the first place, and a reason for the various categories here. To differentiate between scenes that could be viewed (with, of course, a lot of grey area there) versus things that are created outside of the actual photo. We don't HAVE to differentiate it that way... we do it because a lot of people (myself included) like having it differentiated that way.
Personally, if you show me a stunning vista, and I really like it, then later find out that the sky is from one continent, and the mountain is from another, and the lake doesn't even really exist, I'd be very disappointed (and would not like the photo then).
I am in agreement with this, especially the second part. I believe that composited images belong in Photo Art, but who am I to say? I am curious as to what the moderators have to say about this topic.
--P
One of the main guidelines too that always gets overlooked is that it's up to the member to post their image in the "most appropriate" gallery. Of course that is subjective, but really each of us should take that to heart. If you have significantly altered an image for effect, it probably belongs in PA. If you're trying to depict a natural image, just "adjusting" elements but not altering the context of the landscape, then it's probably ok in Landscape too.
In general, a composited moon has been considered Photo Art. I'm referring to a moon from a different time, place not related to the scene where the moon didn't exist in the first place. Now, please note I'm only using this as an example of why it's important to keep the guidelines vague - I'm NOT using this example as a means of starting a debate.... ;-) But for example, one could argue that photographing a scene at sunset, leaving the camera in place for 4 hours and then photograph the same scene as the moon or Milky way appears in the scene in a second image, then blended for a final image, is a composite. Technically, that's true just like any other multi-exposure blend, pano - stitch, whatever. What I think we're looking for in Landscape is a reasonable rendition of a natural landscape. It's also about intent of the photographer, and that we just can't, nor do we want to, regulate.
Bruce, from your just posted description, ie. placing a somewhat larger moon (from the use of a longer focal length, "peanut to a walnut,") within the same scene, same time, is probably pretty common, not as frequently disclosed, but also common and usually accepted. It's those gigantic 10X moons superimposed behind the GG Bridge, bald eagle silhouette, giant moon, etc. - you know the images I'm talking about, that are clearly not real and certainly would belong in Photo Art.
Just from your description, it's unlikely that any of the moderators would move your image and we certainly appreciate the disclosure too. Clearly you're trying to depict a natural scene and not some altered reality. In the end it's going to be image independent; just try and remember to make the best choice. Of course it's not always black and white and we'll move the image if needed at the moderator's discretion. We move a few and miss many. Just trying to keep the "spirit of NPN" in tact for the members.
If you or any other member has any question at all about where to place an image, please don't hesitate to send any moderator a note, include the image or a link and ask for an opinion if you're not sure.
Hope this helps,
Lon, Bill, Eva and Aziz
Actually the idea of pasting the 50MM moon into the wide angle shot was to try to overcome the unrealistic size of a moon shot at 16MM. I thought that a 50MM moon would be the closest to how the eye sees it and not enlarged, thus making the overall image look more like how the eye really saw scene.
Oh gosh, does this mean that simply using a wide angle lens is photo art? That’s it…. I’m selling all of my lenses with the exception of the 50MM.
I'd (emphasis on the "I") say that there's nothing unrealistic about the moon captured at 16mm, since you're also capturing more of the surrounding landscape. So everything (assuming there isn't lots of distortion) is in the proper size ratio to how your eye would see it. Making it larger may better reflect the emphasis you have on the moon in your mind as you view that scene, but it doesn't overcome any sort of technical limitation or inaccuracy.
That being said, I know several people who have been unhappy with their moon photos (even while chimping with the moon right there in front of them), and don't understand how you get one where the moon seems larger/more important. I don't know if that's because the image doesn't match their imagination, the effect of the moon's brightness/prevalence, or if they've just seen too many images with the moon artificially enlarged. I suspect it's all three.
And all of THAT being said, I think Lon's take on it above is great.