the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / The story behind the picture

The story behind the picture

July 5, 2015 JimK 6 Comments

Yesterday I posted this picture:

_DSC0001-Editpartdehazed-2

Today I’ll tell you a bit about how it was made, and see if that changes your assessment of it.

I started out with this image:

_DSC0001-Editpartdehazed

It is a seven-image composite. Here’s what the layers look like in Ps:

no moon stack

Except for the number of composited images, this is not that unusual for this series. I composite two or three images exposed several minutes apart about as often as I use a single exposure.

I looked at the image and I was tempted to drop a moon in there. This kind of manipulation is not something I normally do. In fact, this is the only time I remember doing something like this except as a joke. To me, it wholly different to make several exposures and combine them than it is to introduce an element that wasn’t present at all in the original scene. I resisted it, and the moon still looks foreign to me in the top picture because I know I put it there and I can’t forget that when I look at the picture.

This is not reportage, and I am disclosing what I’m doing, so there’s no ethical problem with introducing a moon that was never there as far as I’m concerned.  All’s fair in art-making, and it’s the final image that matters, right?

Not really, I’m finding out as I examine my reactions to what I’ve done. I am distinctly uncomfortable with introducing gratuitous celestial objects into photographs. It’s not something that I see myself repeating, and I have no plans to ever print the picture with the moon.

Maybe I’ll get used to the idea in the future. More likely not.

My question to you all is, now that you know I stuck the moon in there, how does that change what you think of the image?

The Last Word

← Look at this picture Practicing photography — motor skills →

Comments

  1. Chris Livsey says

    July 5, 2015 at 11:37 pm

    Are you concerned because Ansel Adams has a negative to show he didn’t do that? (assuming not a composite negative copy, which is unlikely as I understand astronomical calculations have confirmed the place, position and time) ?
    Personally it changes my perception not one jot. Pictorialism v realism is one of the oldest photographic discussions, older even than analog v digital or Nikon v Canon 🙂
    I sit on the pictorialism side even if in my work I rarely practice it, that is if you exclude any use of post production sliders or indeed layers, which is an arguable point to a purest realist.
    That in itself almost proves the point, as does the judging of the World Press Photo where there are, subjective largely, rules in lace to limit (not exclude) how much manipulation is involved in what is supposed to be a realistic (substitute factual, another argument) picture. So that depends on judgement, there is no absolute, no “a little bit pregnant” is allowed!!
    Do you choose a high shutter speed to freeze water or a long to blur it? Neither can be viewed strictly as realistic. To me, by definition, photography of three dimensions down to two is manipulation.
    If you feel uncomfortable where you were with that image yourself move away from that place to where you are comfortable, a personal decision, I would not impose a limit on you. Your limit may be, as you infer, introducing what was not there physically but not extended to tonal graduations you have manipulated and introduced as a layer. You make your own rules, I will not judge.

    Reply
  2. Mike Nelson Pedde says

    July 6, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    Cloning in something like the moon isn’t something I generally do myself, but that doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ unless you’re doing journalism, documentary or forensic photography. Two photographers whose work I admire are John Paul Caponigro and Stephen Johnson; their respective takes on the subject are about as opposite as you can get and yet each respects the other’s work.

    Even in the film days we had image sandwiching!

    Mike.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      July 6, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      You’re right about Stephen Johnson. He once told me that he usually doesn’t even clone out cigarette butts and pop cans in the foreground of his pictures.

      Jim

      Reply
  3. Edward says

    July 6, 2015 at 6:25 pm

    I thought myself very clever, having deduced that this photo was in-fact taken in daylight, with some neat channel manipulation to render the blue sky black. The moon was my conclusive proof – it is clearly not in a position to be the light-source for the landscape below. Instead, both moon and landscape appear to be lit from the same direction – the sun is no-doubt lurking out of frame to the left.

    Turns out I’m not so clever after all.

    Clearly there’s more to art than the finished product, or my reproduction of your photo would be as highly regarded as the original. If you make and follow certain rules, like “I will not paste in new elements”, then capturing all the elements you require for a composition becomes a greater feat than if you don’t set those rules. That’s not to say that you can’t make equally impressive work when you allow yourself to paste in additional elements, but your work will be judged in the context of all compositions that can be imagined, rather than all compositions that can be found in nature, so it had better be damned impressive.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      July 7, 2015 at 8:02 am

      The original captures — sans the moon — were made with a LifePixel-modified Sony a7II with the LifePixel Standard IR filter. Hence the dark skies.

      Reply
    • Jim says

      July 7, 2015 at 8:03 am

      …when you allow yourself to paste in additional elements, but your work will be judged in the context of all compositions that can be imagined, rather than all compositions that can be found in nature, so it had better be damned impressive.

      Very well put, sir.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality
  • JimK on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • Darrel Crilley on Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX, Nikon 70-200/@2.8E, Apo-Sonnar 135 on Z7, revisited

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.