6 thoughts on “it was a good day.

  1. The change is color intensity in that image is fascinating – as if two photos from different places have been knit together. As your work often does – I find myself having to visit it several times before I can comment – so much is happening in that frame. Nice.

  2. Dawn is right – that sky almost looks like it was taken somewhere else. I know you well enough to know that isn’t the case, though, and the resulting effect is almost surreal. I wish I’d taken this one. I’d be so proud of myself I couldn’t stand it.

    • You both see just what kind of manipulation I did to this. Sam’s right … I wouldn’t import another sky form a different photo without making mention of it. But I did work on the sky as a separate part of the image (leveling to make it a slight bit darker), and the foreground as a separate section to lighten it a small bit and increase contrast.
      Now, this raises a small/large question … have I manipulated the image beyond what is “acceptable?” I pointed Sam to a site yesterday where the shooter had imported skies and clouds into images, artificially sharpened horizon lines to increase the drama, and built in reflections in the ocean shots to make it seem that the sky and ocean were indeed from the same image. Is this deception? Or simply a new art we are living with?

      • Some folks say the only thing that matters is the finished image. This is an art-as-creation mindset, and they’d argue that they’re just using photo tech the way a visual artist uses a brush. Valid argument. Then you have you naturalists, so of whom are so rabid they’d sneer at your use of Photoshop in any way, shape or form. The only thing that counts is what comes out of the camera. Again, a perfectly valid viewpoint.

        Personally, I’d like to be both – so damned good I can get exactly what I want in the camera, and then free to enhance the product any way I like in post. What you have done here, I suspect, is take an image that wasn’t where it needed to be because of the basic realities of light and other environmental factors and used the tech to produce a final image that’s closer to the “truth” of what was actually there for the eye to see that day.

        I’m good with that. And what you did with the sky, even if it isn’t quite the “truth,” is fantastic.

        Maybe it’s the same as the old journalism argument over objectivity. Which is more important? The facts or the truth? You know me – I’m a Hunter Thompson guy.

      • You made me stop and look – the longer I looked the deeper my consideration of the earth and sky. The foreground is like the red earth of Australia, the center of the image reminds me of the Badlands – and the sky is just cool. There is a spiritual value in the time we spend considering our collective earth home. I have no problem with what you did to create that image.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s