[Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!

[Sandra Nykerk]

I'm not sure how one describes "faked" in today's techno photo world, but by my definition, Bob Howell's image of White Dome is definitely not faked. It is, however, most certainly, "enhanced." It is a two exposure fusion, not quite the HDR that Janet references, as that technique really requires three or more exposures. High dynamic range processes, including tone mapping single images, have been developed to circumvent the dynamic range limitations of sensors vs. the light gathering capabilities of the human eye. Ditto for the technique of exposure fusion. Any HDR process can be done gently and realistically, or with a heavier touch, which can transform the image into an illustration. Or somewhere in between. 

Bob simply took one exposure which was correct for the moon illuminating White Dome and blended it with a second exposure for the aurora. Each was a 30 second exposure. The image was then optimized in a photo software program. You may not care for the results, but I don't see how this can be labeled as "fake." 

Sandra Nykerk
snykerk at mcn.net




On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:28 AM, "Janet White | SnowMoon, LLC" <janet at snowmoon.us> wrote:

> This photo doesn't look so much fake to me as simply an HDR version. I searched for the photographer and he talks about this particular photo on his blog:
> http://roberthowell.blogspot.com/2012/10/photographing-aurora-borealis-and.html
> 
> It's an HDR (high dynamic range) photo - which combines two or more exposures. You are right when you say it can't be done with one shot, but most astrophotographers do this now because that's what sells - it more realistically captures what the eye can see (and with some aurora photos, more than we can see - is that 'faking'     it?). However, the 'painted' edges happen with certain techniques and software.  Some people like HDR, some find it jarring.
> 
> Personally, I don't like the painterly look, so go for a more realistic version, but that's up to each photographer's taste. Robert has quite a few in his galleries that show that strong HDR look. 
> 
> Personally, I use Photomatix to produce HDR images if the photos need it to bring it to more detail of what I recall the scene looking like - so the sky doesn't fade to black, but shows more of the blue we see and yet retain the visibility in the white in the photo. However, for geysers or anything with lots of movement, they have to be one image processed at different exposures and then combined into one final image. Is that 'fake' or just using technology to bring the scene details out? For pools, I have shot three (or six) exposure bracketed photos and used the software to combine them.  Jewelry/product photographers combine depth of field on macro shots which some might consider fake, but others just look at it as we would see the object in person.
> 
> Here are a few that I've done as HDR photos:
> Abyss Pool - three photos combined with software
> Old Faithful Inn - two photos combined with software - on this one I also evened out the darkness on the top corners with the burning tool on one of them.
> Palette Spring - one photo processed three different ways and then combined (via the software)
> 
> If it's not your thing, that's fine, but is it really 'fake' if it's the same night, same time, just different exposures combined? Maybe in your opinion, yes. More detail is better than blown highlights or black shadows in my opinion. I happen to like this photo of his.
> 
> Janet White
> SnowMoon, LLC
> SnowMoon Photography .com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geysers mailing list
> Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121019/c53c3b38/attachment-0001.html>