[Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!

[Steven Krause]

As a reference point from another hobby of mine that relies on photography:

A photograph is "real" if you didn't add elements to it, or you didn't 
remove elements from it. (cell towers are a controversy in this respect 
- removing them is still modification in some/many people's opinion.)

A photograph is still "real" even if you're doing HDR or other 
techniques in this fashion, but using the elements as they were 
presented to the camera (flashlight, headlight, that stuff all counts as 
"real" on the scene.)

As soon as you start "making" stars or removing significant blur traces, 
or adding elements from other photographs, it's no longer "real". HDR 
avoids that problem because it's taking the details from another photo. 
Earlier, someone mentioned Ansel Adam's work. He took advantage of the 
negatives he was using having a much higher dynamic range than the paper 
he was printing on, and created prints using multiple exposures of that 
print that contained images from that negative, but that other 
photographers only could dream of.

If this is a mosaic technique where he did add elements from another 
photo, then it's in a grey area by the rules of some people. It's a 
created image, not a photographed image. Fake is such a harsh word when 
you're talking artwork.

Long story short. It's entirely legitimate to dislike the particular 
photographic style. The definition of "real" or "created" image has only 
broad consensus outlines, and in this case that difference is likely to 
be debated.

I think it's a neat photo.

Steve Krause

On 10/20/2012 2:13 PM, Davis, Brian L. wrote:
> Janet White wrote:
>
>> This photo doesn't look so much fake to me as simply an HDR version... is it really 'fake' if
>> it's the same night, same time, just different exposures combined?
> That's a really good point. What's a "real" picture? One that faithfully renders how a silver emulsion reacted to some very specific wavelengths of light? Or one that captures the three specific frequencies of light that your eye does? Or one that evokes what your brain remembers of a scene? My eye/brain combination has an amazing dynamic range... far far better than film, or digital. And a camera doesn't capture what I see in the first place (eye integration times are on the order of 0.1 seconds, while the majority of cameras capture far faster, and so can record "invisible detail" to the eye).
>
> I tend to agree with Janet - this may not be a "real" picture... but that's not actually why most pictures are taken. They are taken to capture the experience.
>


-- 
Steven Krause
Chillicothe, IL