[Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!

[Sarah Heiner]

"I still think that a camera-image which does not truly represent what the eye sees at a given moment is faked."

By
 that definition, most, if not all, astrophotography is "faked."  You 
certainly won't see this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120909.html or 
this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120920.html 
or this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap121014.html with 
the human eye; it takes special photographic techniques to bring us 
these images.

That you don't care for the White Dome picture, I 
understand.  But I think it would be best to be very careful about using
 the term "faked," as that carries extremely negative connotations.  It 
implies that the image was created with the intent to deceive, and that 
is certainly not the case here.

Sarah Heiner

bookworm1225 at yahoo.com

--- On Mon, 10/22/12, Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov <Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov> wrote:

From: Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov <Lee_Whittlesey at nps.gov>
Subject: Re: [Geysers] great APOD pic!--Faked!
To: "Geyser Observation Reports" <geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu>
Date: Monday, October 22, 2012, 10:08 AM


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









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







-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Geysers mailing list
Geysers at lists.wallawalla.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </geyser-list/attachments/20121023/01591346/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/20121023/01591346/attachment.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/20121023/01591346/attachment-0001.gif>