- This topic is empty.
Plassey Shipwreck (Inis Oirr)
-
I assumed that the nature of this image would open a can of worms so I appreciate and welcome the comments. I too agree that this image doesn’t qualify as a photograph in the strictest sense. It’s all down to where the line is drawn and how one defines a photograph. As Pete says, usually HDR is the edge of acceptability but others would argue that a HDR is no longer a photograph. I’m not sure how extreme a purist would go in terms of what processing is and is not allowed in order for the final image to be still considered a photograph. Does cloning dust spots inherently alter the scene as it exists in reality?
andy mcinroy wrote:
I have some difficulty with the idea of replacing skies without a declaration.
I also had some difficulty deciding on whether/how to post it. When I took the actual shipwreck image, I had hoped that I would be able to work on the RAW file to try and pull back some of the detail but it didn’t take me long to realise that the light was too flat to make anything of it. I had put it aside with the intention of someday returning to Inis Oirr with more time on my hands. I really only added the sky as a personal challenge to see if I could match the warmth of a sunset with a cold flat overcast day. The reason I originally posted it with so little information was to get some honest feedback and also out of curiosity as to whether the processing would be picked up on, with every intention of coming clean either way. I agree with you completely about waiting for the light and I fully intend to return to the shipwreck some day (or night) and get it right in camera.
PeteTheBloke wrote:
does it print OK? Or is the tampering evident on a full-size print?
I haven’t made a print but it should print OK. The processing isn’t evident when viewing it at 100% so it should be fine.
aoluain wrote:
the sunset is kindof in the wrong place
:) I did think of that as I was working on it and I thought it would probably be one of the biggest giveaways for anyone familiar with the area. But, as Andy said, it’s based on fantasy.
Both fig and aoluain posted while I was writing my post so I missed their opinions. I guess my own view on what is “allowed” was based on whether or not the same effect could be achieved in the darkroom. To that effect I had considered that adding any part of another photograph was breaking “the rules”. However I hadn’t considered the interesting point which fig makes regarding sandwiching two slides. I’m going to have to think about it some more!
Aah come on lads,
if you hang this pic up in an exhibition and somebody from Inis Oirr comes in and views this
photo they are not going to hunt Latchiko down and accuse him of lying to them.photography in some forms is Art and Expressionism, its about what the viewer sees, what you want
them to see and the feeling they get.Some people would walk by this and not give it a thought, others wwould comment on the plassey and how is was
wrecked, blah blah blah.i think we are getting too hung up on this.
it would be different if he put a boeing 747 zooming in over the wreck or something, then its gone too far!
A
Fair play to you Latchiko, for a frank and moderate reply. If you’d been looking for
a battle, I think you’d have had one – not from me, though. :)I looked at this earlier and thought, cool picture… I don’t see it as big deal that you layered two pictures, in fact I find you processing skills impressive!
I also liked your reasoning for giving the information in the first post.
:wink:
Sinead.
fig wrote:
what defines a photographer apart from a digital artist is the photographer will spend time making it look real
Being a Professional CG artist i disagree with that scurrilous statement!! haha just messing, i think what you are talking about there is just a bad digital artist if they cant make it look planted in an image!! I personally hate clinically clean sharp edged cg images of buildings, and i like realism, adding interesting soft light, dof, even some chromatic abberation and noise, and defects and dirt in thebuilding itself! And it takes alot of time. But anyway thats a totally seperate topic!!
Im kind of sitting on the fence with this one, i totally agree that photography is about interpretation, and that photographers have been manipulating images for years, it doesnt matter whether it was digital or film, thats irrevelant, is Star Wars real because they used film and not digital!? Chroma keying (green/blue screens) were invented in the 1930’s, so evidently there was this sort of compositing back then too whereby backgrounds are interchangable. I have no problem with this, just if somebody was trying to pass it off as being totally real.
i personally prefer not to add or remove things from photos but have nothing against it once its done well, it still takes skill to do so after all, but either way its a lovely image!
Edit: My first paragraph did actually have a point i forgot to make, some people do have the idea that manipulation, compositing, cg modelling on a computer is a simple case of adjust a few settings, hit the button and bam job done to perfection….it takes alot of talent to pull off any compositing effectively, and i think latchiko has done a good job here. Just have a look on the net, there are countless examples of terrible compositing with shadows going the wrong direction to fake suns orientation, midtones and contrast being off, colour being incorrect, it is very difficult, i even seen in a “digital photographer” magazine, what was IMO a really unconvincing composite of some girl in front of a barn at sunset.
Pouring petrol on the cinders? ;-)
Sorry I meant to add “In my opinion” to that. I’m sure as a professional CG artist you would have an entirely different view on images. I am a photographer not CG artist so I can’t comment. I suppose what I meant though was a digital artist isn’t confined by realism but can choose this of course. I think a photographer (to say he’s a photographer not a digital artist) will have to make the image look real. The one thing though that we all seemed to agree on after these discussions though is that everyone has a different idea on what is and isn’t photography and it’s a case of do what you like and don’t expect everyone to like it.
Never meant to imply that CG work was easy, don’t know how you took that from that sentence? Agree completely a bad image will always stick out.
Oh no fig i was only joking with you, I know you didnt imply that cg is easy, but i know some people, including my boss do, my comment wasnt aimed at you or anything, sorry about that, just was my opinion about the whole compositing thing!! Yeah i probably am pouring petrol on cinders!! oops! Admin should probably close this thread before i start it off again!
I do like to separate cg and photography though!! I tend to do a fair bit of processing myself, but just dont feel its anything that cant be done in analogue photography either!!
We are all artists after all, and we should be trying something new and different! Each to their own i say!
And once again latchiko, great image! and very natural looking sky conversion!
Very impressive – really. Striking image – the colour and attention to detail is great
daithi
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
