Tricking the light. When is a photo not a photo?

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,470
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
So what do I mean?

About 8pm on Sunday 14 Aug I took a shot of the setting sun, however, it was nothing like the image I am going to show you.

The glare of the sun would have blown out the picture, so I dropped the Exposure Compensation by about -4. Personally I love the result.

But the thing is, the sun would never be there when it's that dark, and in a nutshell the whole image is false, but real at the same time because it was all there?

I think you can see what I'm getting at, so would you consider this acceptable artistic licence or going too far?

Here's the image - it would not look like this for at least another hour and of course the sun would have dropped and the clouds moved away. Have I cheated or been artistic/creative?

Stagsden Sunset.jpg
 
That's called photography.
It's not cheating, it's what we all do.
Even if we increase the shadows slider a bit to show more detail that would be cheating in your view above.

BTW Clone out the pylon and that's not a bad image.
 
Someone, I forget who, once said that "all photographs lie".

If it's a single exposure with no bits added or taken away and only 'standard darkroom' techniques added it's a photograph IMO.

PS I'd leave the pylon where it is.
 
Nothing cheating or false about that photo.
 
Crotal Bell said:
So what do I mean?

About 8pm on Sunday 14 Aug I took a shot of the setting sun, however, it was nothing like the image I am going to show you.

The glare of the sun would have blown out the picture, so I dropped the Exposure Compensation by about -4. Personally I love the result.

But the thing is, the sun would never be there when it's that dark, and in a nutshell the whole image is false, but real at the same time because it was all there?

I think you can see what I'm getting at, so would you consider this acceptable artistic licence or going too far?

Here's the image - it would not look like this for at least another hour and of course the sun would have dropped and the clouds moved away. Have I cheated or been artistic/creative?

View attachment 363866
Click to expand...
You seem to be over thinking it. The word "photograph" means "drawing with light".
 
GreenNinja67 said:
That's called photography.
It's not cheating, it's what we all do.
Even if we increase the shadows slider a bit to show more detail that would be cheating in your view above.

BTW Clone out the pylon and that's not a bad image.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the same as slightly raising shadows etc, but I never suggested that editing is cheating. It's more about how much people think is acceptable, and I'm glad people are ok with what I did. I prefer to edited images so they reflect what I saw at the time, but with this one I got creative and really liked the end result.
I really like the pylon, to me it's a feature of that particular landscape. I tend to avoid the big ones though most of the time.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Someone, I forget who, once said that "all photographs lie".

If it's a single exposure with no bits added or taken away and only 'standard darkroom' techniques added it's a photograph IMO.

PS I'd leave the pylon where it is.
Click to expand...
Thanks, and yes I like the pylon too.
 
So you've exposed for the highlight . That's standard practice in alot of shots .it's simply the lack of dynamic range most cameras have so it's very much a photograph
 
It is not a lie at all.
The camera left to itself would have got it entirely wrong.
It would have based it's exposure on the brightness of the sun, which would be incorrect.
Unless they have and use a special modes for sunsets. They would try to base the exposure on a middle 12 to 18% grey.

That is exactly a situation that the compensation you used is intended for.
 
stumac said:
So you've exposed for the highlight . That's standard practice in alot of shots .it's simply the lack of dynamic range most cameras have so it's very much a photograph
Click to expand...
Thanks, it was just the fact that the image was taken at 8pm in dusk light, but looks like 9pm in night light, If I had aimed away from the sun it would have shown the yellow fields and green trees, and a blue clouded sky, a real reflection of the time and light. It just felt a bit like I had created a "false setting" but it worked and I'm glad people approve.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It is not a lie at all.
The camera left to itself would have got it entirely wrong.
It would have based it's exposure on the brightness of the sun, which would be incorrect.
Unless they have and use a special modes for sunsets. They would try to base the exposure on a middle 12 to 18% grey.

That is exactly a situation that the compensation you used is intended for.
Click to expand...
Thanks Terry, it just felt a bit naughty to take an 8pm shot when there was a fair bit of light and turn it into a night sky, but I like it and pleased people are supportive.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thanks, it was just the fact that the image was taken at 8pm in dusk light, but looks like 9pm in night light, If I had aimed away from the sun it would have shown the yellow fields and green trees, and a blue clouded sky, a real reflection of the time and light. It just felt a bit like I had created a "false setting" but it worked and I'm glad people approve.
Click to expand...
That's just how exposure works, face the sun and things are silhouetted, face away from the sun and everything tends to be bright and colourful. It's not false it's just physics (y)
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thanks, it was just the fact that the image was taken at 8pm in dusk light, but looks like 9pm in night light, If I had aimed away from the sun it would have shown the yellow fields and green trees, and a blue clouded sky, a real reflection of the time and light. It just felt a bit like I had created a "false setting" but it worked and I'm glad people approve.
Click to expand...
If your camera's sensor and your software are up to it you could open up the shadows and get detail in it to appear. But if overdone that can look even less 'realistic'.
 
I've got plenty of slides like that and the gods know how many digital shots! I've even been known to use a pair (or even 2!) of sunglasses as neutral density filters to darken a fil image when using a camera with no adjustments.
 
Ed Sutton said:
If your camera's sensor and your software are up to it you could open up the shadows and get detail in it to appear. But if overdone that can look even less 'realistic'.
Click to expand...
Yes I tried that, sadly the lifted areas looked grainy and needed contrast which just took them down again. It seemed better to compose the dark scene.
 
Nod said:
I've got plenty of slides like that and the gods know how many digital shots! I've even been known to use a pair (or even 2!) of sunglasses as neutral density filters to darken a fil image when using a camera with no adjustments.
Click to expand...
Putting sunglasses on a camera, that's innovative !
 
Needs must when there's a sunset behind Stonehenge as you're heading home down the A303 with only an instamatic camera!!!
 
It's a nice picture Keith and I'd leave the pole and the wires in.

I do like the picture but I personally don't tend to like silhouettes so if I'd taken this I'd probably lift the shadows just a bit to give a hint of detail but if you like the picture as it is then all is just fine :D

I don't think this is cheating... Cheating could be dropping in another sky or pasting in Middlesbrough's sixth goal against Man City :D but even then as long as you don't try and con anyone that could be just fine too :D
 
As others have mentioned you’re simply compensating for your cameras poor dynamic range (compared to the human eye). If it bothers you that much you should have exposed for the foreground too, and merged in post.
 
Last edited:
jakeblu said:
As others have mentioned you’re simply compensating for your cameras poor dynamic range (compared to the human eye). If it bothers you that much you should have exposed for the foreground too, and merged in post.
Click to expand...
Oh it doesn't bother me, just wondered what people thought Steve, I'm pleased people see it as creative as I really like it (even if it was much lighter in reality)
 
woof woof said:
It's a nice picture Keith and I'd leave the pole and the wires in.

I do like the picture but I personally don't tend to like silhouettes so if I'd taken this I'd probably lift the shadows just a bit to give a hint of detail but if you like the picture as it is then all is just fine :D

I don't think this is cheating... Cheating could be dropping in another sky or pasting in Middlesbrough's sixth goal against Man City :D but even then as long as you don't try and con anyone that could be just fine too :D
Click to expand...
I agree, I never saw it as cheating, just wasn't sure it it was taking the "creative" element too far. I don't mind the fact that it was a lot lighter in reality, dropping it down gave me the right effect I wanted with the sun and colours on the clouds. I'm just pleased people see this as acceptable.
 
No camera can cope with probably 18+ stops of scene Dynamic Range as in this scene so many would have used multiple exposure to combine to cope with the dynamic range. This is not that much different how we see things. Remember the scene in front of you is processed by the eyes and brain. You eyes adjust by the iris and longer term chemical adjustments. Also your brain interprets the scene. You would probably not stare right at the bright sun but would be aware it was there so your eyes would adjust to the surrounding sky but not give you truthful sun but an impression which fits it with previous sunsets.

Dave
 
Crotal Bell said:
I agree, I never saw it as cheating, just wasn't sure it it was taking the "creative" element too far. I don't mind the fact that it was a lot lighter in reality, dropping it down gave me the right effect I wanted with the sun and colours on the clouds. I'm just pleased people see this as acceptable.
Click to expand...

It's more than acceptable. It's very nice :D
 
To avoid the large block of detail less shadow/silhouette in the foreground, I usually frame the shot so there's as little as possible.

As you say in post #25, "dropping it down gave me the right effect I wanted" and since you are the "customer", what you wanted is right!
 
I think you've done well getting a nice image by manipulating your settings rather than just not getting the shot ! Nice image by the way.
 
It's no different from putting on a pair of dark glasses, no one would accuse you of cheating if you did that.
 
Nod said:
To avoid the large block of detail less shadow/silhouette in the foreground, I usually frame the shot so there's as little as possible.

As you say in post #25, "dropping it down gave me the right effect I wanted" and since you are the "customer", what you wanted is right!
Click to expand...
Something more like this with a bit more trimmed off the bottom?
Nice idea, seems to emphasise the pylon more too which I like.
I need to play around more with the finish, I think you have a point and I like it.
Stagsden Sunset. crop jpg.jpg
 
When processing it can be helpful to have a couple of sheets of white paper that you can hold up to the screen to crop your image without changing it. I find this worked better for me, especially at first, than just relying on the tools in software and juggling around.
 
ancient_mariner said:
When processing it can be helpful to have a couple of sheets of white paper that you can hold up to the screen to crop your image without changing it. I find this worked better for me, especially at first, than just relying on the tools in software and juggling around.
Click to expand...
That's a nice idea, thanks or the tip.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Thanks Terry, it just felt a bit naughty to take an 8pm shot when there was a fair bit of light and turn it into a night sky, but I like it and pleased people are supportive.
Click to expand...

probably half the movies you've watched will have shot night scenes as "day for night" somewhere along the line... It's a respected and useful technique to have in your big box of photographic tricks :)
 
TheBigYin said:
probably half the movies you've watched will have shot night scenes as "day for night" somewhere along the line... It's a respected and useful technique to have in your big box of photographic tricks :)
Click to expand...
I guess there's two ways to look at editing, trying to recreate exactly what you saw, or being artistic and creative
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top