HOME | DD
BobVPR β Under Halo Light
Published: 2009-02-28 03:26:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 511; Favourites: 48; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Perhelion casts a preternatural light.Related content
Comments: 13
Thanks! I have tried to show others how to photograph under this kind of natural light, but it does require cold weather and unique conditions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeahhhhh, I bet!! Well, you did a wonderful with it~
π: 0 β©: 1
The sharpness and contrast really brings this image out. I like the colours.
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad you liked it, one of my favorites. I consider it a duty and resposibility to correct curves and levels in a photo, but these halo-influenced photos are fine enough as is and tend to resist my clumsy correction even if I tried.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed.
So you are not one to leave photos pure?
π: 0 β©: 1
I am sorry about not answering, I am just now digging down through my reply posts and I am admittedly negligent and tardy.
I love and adore this question of purity and I am happy you asked. There is no answer. Or, there are an infinite number of answers. I recognize what I define for myself as pure truth or pure fable; I have difficulty understanding the position of others as it relates to the three (3) following questions of purity:
1. Originality. Is it plagarism to immitate the style of old masters, is it immoral or evil to copy the work of an admired artist, or is it stealing to honor the work of a dead poet, musician or artist by a tribute which immitates? For me the answer is that it is wrong for me, perhaps when I am much better I can rightly perform honors, but now, for me the definition of originality is that I rely only upon my own muse. The music is a tune only I hear and in that I must be alone (today's dischords may sound sweet to my ears tomorrow).
2. Creativity. I have been at this for far too long to surrender to the fear of trying something new, if I keep an open mind to new craft I remain open to growth When I studied Ansel Adams Zone Theory, the photographer is responsible for control of the image from capture through development and to printing. A negative of "Moonrise over Hernandez" is not the same as the print, which is interpreted and created through the craft of developing, enlarging, dodging, burning and printing. Customizing the digital camera's internal settings for tone and balance are thr photographer's choice, as well as how filters are waved and jiggled in front of a lens with an open aperature. If the result is too grainy, too sharp or too rich in color the artwork will fail from its own gravity. I appreciate the custom of photgraphers who indicate when a treatment has been applied which artificially enhances the image. I will print my image and soak it in coffee and heat it on the back of the woodstove and scan it back in to acheive a result such as [link] inorder to placate the muse. I list the results under miscellaneous, digital darkroom or photomanipulation.
3.Authenticity. Pictures don't lie. The New York Times Sunday edition ART section January 4, 2009 said it better than I in their coverage of the art exhibit "First Doubt: Optical Confusion in Modern Photography" which illuminates the secret, "Photographs have always been more an artifice than a true recital of the outside world". So, there-in is the art, leave the documentation to the photojournalists; for photojournalism the image must not be touched, the art of developing or printing is not to be used in journalistic work.
In summary, RAW digital files may be corrected with optimum results because you are revealing the latent attributes of the original image. JPG compression introduces artificial compression and so may exceed your tolerance for purity when manipulated in a photo imaging program. I find it unnecessary to change the images for DA because the corrections are too fine to be seen. On the other hand, dust on the camera's sensor will show up in a print and must be removed prior to printing. If an image has treatment the image should be listed under digital darkroom or specify the method of treatment.
I may expand this into a journal topic if it hasn't been discussed before. Thanks for asking the question!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Itβs perfectly fine.
1. Well, we all get our concepts/inspiration from somewhere. But yes, our own muse is good enough. Otherwise, if you follow all the other people, youβre just being mainstream, arenβt you?
2. Ah right, yes, indeed.
Hmmβ¦ I see what you mean. Itβs interesting, to say the least. It all comes down to perception though, at the end of the day.
π: 0 β©: 1
The poll is pretty much completed now, see [link]
π: 0 β©: 1