[Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!

[Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov]

Well...after all of that labored explanation from several people, I still
think that a camera-image which does not truly represent what the eye sees
at a given moment is faked.  And I agree completely with Paul Strasser when
he made the comment that "this effort is awful."

The image is fanciful, created, unreal, "enhanced," photo-shopped, messed
with, or (using the most simple term) faked. That's my opinion and I'm
sticking to it.

I guess I'm one of those people who simply does not care for this kind of
work.

Lee Whittlesey







                                                                           
             Sandra Nykerk                                                 
             <snykerk at mcn.net>                                             
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             <geysers-bounces@         Geyser Observation Reports          
             lists.wallawalla.         <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>      
             edu>                                                       cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
             10/19/2012 09:05          Re: [Geysers] great APOD            
             PM                        pic!--Faked!                        
                                                                           
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
                  Geyser                                                   
                Observation                                                
                  Reports                                                  
             <geysers at lists.wa                                             
               llawalla.edu>                                               
                                                                           
                                                                           




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
      
      _______________________________________________
      Geysers mailing list
      Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu
      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121022/44410041/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121022/44410041/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic24023.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121022/44410041/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121022/44410041/attachment-0002.gif>