[Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!

[TSBryan at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/22/2012 5:07:03 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov writes:

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>



Sandra Nykerk  <snykerk at mcn.net> 
Sent by:  <geysers-bounces at lists.wallawalla.edu>  
10/19/2012 09:05 PM      
Please respond to
Geyser  Observation Reports  <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>





To

Geyser  Observation Reports  <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>  
cc


Subject

Re:  [Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!     
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_ (mailto:snykerk at mcn.net) 




On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:28 AM, "Janet White | SnowMoon, LLC"  
<_janet at snowmoon.us_ (mailto: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_ 
(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_ 
(http://snowmoonphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Yellowstone-Geyser-and-Hot-Spring-Photos/G0000MrwDNekuUnU/I0000600iYMit._8/C0000
42K5a2lOOVc)  - three photos  combined with software
_Old Faithful Inn_ 
(http://snowmoonphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Yellowstone-Buildings/G000004vBOzLObxk/I0000J6XQVuObTw8/C000042K5a2lOOVc) 
 - 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_ 
(http://snowmoonphotography.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Yellowstone-Geyser-and-Hot-Spring-Photos/G0000MrwDNekuUnU/I0000p2RNqSQvSJs/C
000042K5a2lOOVc)  - 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_ (mailto:Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu) 
__ 
() 
_______________________________________________
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/d2533cc0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/d2533cc0/attachment-0009.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0010.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0011.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0012.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0013.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0014.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0015.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0016.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/d2533cc0/attachment-0017.gif>