Photo-realism or excitement?

Messages
23,400
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
So today we had a bitingly cold wind blowing heavy grey clouds across the flood water that's presently filling the Cherwell valley where I live. There were occasional gaps in the cloud giving crepuscular rays that stabbed down onto the landscape with reflections off the water, but mostly it was just flat and dull. I took a few frames because the rays looked good, already knowing how I wanted to process them and that it wouldn't take much work to do that, but half way through processing I felt like I was cheating to present somethning that was only real 'in camera'.

So here's 2 pairs of photos, processed to look like it did to the eye (which is NOT how the camera saw it) and processed the way I'd intended with a mono conversion and split toning. What do you think - have I 'cheated' or is this a reasonable way to change a scene for the sake of a picture?

Photorealism-05536 colour by Anton Ertl, on Flickr

Photorealism-05536 mono by Anton Ertl, on Flickr

Photorealism-05550 colour by Anton Ertl, on Flickr

Photorealism-05550 Mono by Anton Ertl, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
1. Crepuscular rays can be very difficult, especially as they often occur with very bright and very dark regions of the view. 2. If it gives the effect you want, and you're honest about the processing (which you obviously are!) the processing is completely legitimate. 3. You've got the atmosphere of a winter's day.
 
If your photographs are not intended to be forensic, there is no cheating or wrong about it. The first mono/split toned picture is excellent. The second is a bit dark for my tastes. Both are way better than the colour originals.
 
1. Crepuscular rays can be very difficult, especially as they often occur with very bright and very dark regions of the view. 2. If it gives the effect you want, and you're honest about the processing (which you obviously are!) the processing is completely legitimate. 3. You've got the atmosphere of a winter's day.

Thanks John F

If your photographs are not intended to be forensic, there is no cheating or wrong about it. The first mono/split toned picture is excellent. The second is a bit dark for my tastes. Both are way better than the colour originals.

Thank you John. I understand your comment about the second being dark - it's not a 'natural' image at all.
 
Looks good to me too. On my screen looks like some halo at the top of the trees, might want to reduce that a bit.
 
Toni you appear to be feeling guilty about the art of photography.

You are producing your interpretation which is legitimate. That is unless you merely wish to produce a record of the scene as decided by your camera.
 
Last edited:
Looks good to me too. On my screen looks like some halo at the top of the trees, might want to reduce that a bit.

Thanks Tim - I've realised that's a lightroom artefact, present in both 'natural' and B&W images. I think it's there from trying too hard to control the highlights in the sky.

Toni you appear to be feeling guilty about the art of photography.

You are producing your interpretation which is legitimate. That is unless you merely wish to produce a record of the scene as decided by your camera.

Thanks Alf, it's probably not guilt so much as a tension between the 'landscaper' and a desire to do a bit more sometimes. :)

There are no rules.

Just guidance for wise men. ;)
 
Back
Top