Photo story of the week: Fire and Ice

If an image is an artistic expression, and i believe it is, then no one should ever ask to see the photographer's RAW file as a means of judging the final image. Judge the image on its own merits; like it, hate it, or be ambivalent about it, but don't attempt to "improve" on it.

When I see a pic like this my mind goes how much is this beautiful scene (as captured) the contribution of mother nature, and how much is contributed by the photographer. Mostly in terms of colours, as framing, angle etc. would be all on the photographers skill. I am not saying the pre-processed image represents accurately what the scene looked like, but for me it is good to know if and what changes were made after. Isn't this good for knowledge? Also, Erez has provided the initial image in his DPR articles before and this is the digital age, after all.

Never ask the magician to show you how the trick is done.

Photos are never unbiased recordings of events. They are always blends of an event, technology, and the creativity and skill of the photographer. Even security cam footage is 2D, has a constrained field of view, and renders color and shading differently from the human eye.

It’s up to the photographer to decide how much manipulation is appropriate for their photography. It’s a creative decision based on the intended use of the photo and the photographer’s creative philosophy. Also, community norms come into play—advertising, art, and journalism have very different standards for how much is too much.

Unless you know the photographer well (or you’re in an educational setting, being taught how to do this stuff) it’s rude to ask to see what the photo looked like before processing. So unless you have a really good reason for needing to know, it’s best to let the photographer decide how much of their creative process to reveal.

To be fair, while it is entirely possible there could have been manipulation to highlights/shadows/saturation, I have seen sunrises just like this (minus the ice!), so it's a believable shot as presented. Which is more than I can say for countless thousands of landscape images dotted around the internet, sigh.

And a 16-35 f/4, not f/2.8. That is so unprofessional ; -)

Actually, that was taken with his eye. Canon, Nikon are both good. Same with the lenses.

@shigzeo - yea, a 50Mp Medium Format sensor jammed in there with custom wiring! No way a bog stock Canon could do this.

Flip, Adam2, what's got into you? That's quite a rant, none of which makes any sense. Lucky it's not aimed at me, huh? Please, stop being nasty. There is no call for it.

@deep7, I can only get award-winning images in my dreams.

JACS - How is it "off topic" anyway? The photograph is of a beautiful Arctic scene, that in a few decades will most likely disappear, due to the melting of the ice sheets. Erez drew attention to its beauty, and quietrich drew attention to the fact that it is a scene that is destined to disappear as a result of human effects on global climate. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Quitrich,

Your editorial concerns are duly noted.

Now, since this a photography-oriented site in which you are commenting I assume that you have some kind of photographic equipment.

So, why not just pick it up and try to tell your own " story of the week" about the sad state of affairs you so rightfully address instead of dicing other's efforts with patronizing wording that clearly shows you have no clue how difficult it is to obtain the published photo?

It doesn't have to be an on-site, literal approach.

If you apply a fraction of the energy that goes into your righteousness into some creative picture taking you'll find that it will be easy to find some metaphoric, ironic or paradoxical strong stories on any visit to the nearest seafront.

Entoman - The problem with your argument is that science is not based on consensus but evidence. The question is not whether the climate is changing - IT IS and always has been throughout astronomical history. The fundamental issue is whether human emissions, primarily CO2 are adversely affecting the climate. That answer does not have sufficient evidence nor are there any definitive conclusions. Moreover, the issue of human involved climate change is wrapped up in taxation, government control, and less than equitable regulations.

500 years ago, the consensus was that if you sailed to the edge of the world that you fell off. Based on your consensus theory, the earth was and is flat. Up until 200 years ago, scientists were convinced than an invisible "miasma" was responsible for infectious disease. While that was the prevailing consensus scientists were found to be wrong yet again.

The problem isn't studying climate change but becoming a religious zealot devoid of thought.

Moreover, rather than worrying about whether one drives a Tesla (only the elites) while the rest of us are taxed and forced to bicycle or walk to "save the planet", consider addressing the myriad of social/political issues which have farther reaching consequences including wars, poverty, population control, and species extinction from human interference such as this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/world/africa/ape-trafficking-bonobos-orangutans.html

Read that article, cry, and then do something other than take my hard earned money.

Adam2 - OK so let's take a chance and forget about cutting emissions, be selfish as usual and destroy the environment. Maybe the ice caps will stabilise. Maybe we'll have a nuclear winter that reverses everything. Maybe jobs for coal miners are more important than the survival of the millions of species that are threatened by widely forecast mass extinction.

If that's too remote for you, think about your own kids and grandchildren, who will likely find themselves under 8 feet of sea water if they live at low altitudes anywhere in the world.

Almost every country in the world except Trumps USA, knows that the risk is too great.

The evidence is circumstantial, and I'm a bit of a skeptic myself at the best of times, but the consensus of scientific opinion, across the entire globe, is that human-induced climate change is responsible for global warming that will have catastrophic consequences on this planet and all it's species, including humans.

Photokhan - Fundamentally I'd agree that on a photographic site, we should confine ourselves to photography. BUT consider the fact that there are 2 ways to think about a photograph.

Firstly you consider the artistic and technical merits. Secondly you consider the subject.

I've addressed both aspects in some detail on this page. Quietrich has concentrated on only addressing the subject. But his comments are valid and relevant. Just because the photograph was not journalistic by nature does not mean that journalistic comment is invalid or out of place.

You will e.g. find that most of the world's greatest wildlife photographers and landscapists are very passionate about their subjects, and the photographer (Erez in this case) probably values support in the fight to protect that wildlife and those environments.

I agree with you there Photokhan, it's wrong to be arrogant, bigoted or insulting. I sometimes fail to meet my own standards, but I try to be constructive and logical. But sometimes when someone is truly passionate about a subject, they can get carried away a bit and become self-righteous as quietrich does. Unfortunately, self-righteousness is rife on this forum - the "my brand is best" fanboys are a prime example.

PhotoKhan, I’m reassured that you note my concerns. Phew! You suggest that I should apply my energy to taking photographs rather than commenting here, but commence to post two replies. Should we assume that it’s your assistant typing here?

Adam2, in 20 years when our coastal cities are under water, the argument as to why will be even less relevant. The thermometer is showing a number – you can choose to believe it or to call it fake news. Meanwhile, the ice in Greenland is melting and the climate is changing.

Off-topic? I posted a url to an image taken at the same location as this one. Toggle between them and ask which is the more powerful. Which one speaks to the narrative and condition of the place, and which one speaks to the commercial agenda of the photographer?

What is the role of the landscape photographer today? (It's a question).

Here in Ohio, I am looking forward to living on a tropical island. I suspect much of Trumpland feels the same. The winters are still cold here.

photofisher - Good luck - but that tropical island will be increasingly prone to hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and other "natural catastrophes" as climate change takes bite. Still want to go? Fancy living in Puerto Rico? You won't get much sympathy from the dotard if you move there!

@entoman: Look at the bright side: it will melt all snowflakes.

Adam2,
your logic is irreparably twisted: how is science related to someone taking your money? Anyways, don't worry about it, the climate IS changing and someone IS taking your money no matter what. Denying that it is happening is not going to change a thing.

Roland "A picture of ice on Greenland is a very strong picture regarding global warming"

I agree totally. There are two ways to draw attention to the issues that threaten our wildlife and our environment.

One is to photograph and document the beauty of the world we live in, which hopefully makes people want to retain that beauty.

The other method is to photograph and document the evidence that it is being lost.

Offensive ranting does nothing but alienate people.

@Rick Knepper. You say that I could have made my point in a different way. Do you mean like these direct quotes from your last three comments?

“I doubt you'll learn anything from the link below but it may be helpful to anyone dumb enough to listen to your blather.”
“End of stupidity, you mean?”
“Hey photomoron, unlike yourself, I never talk about stuff I know nothing about.”

By comparison my comments here are respectful; I’ve not disparaged or insulted any commenters at all. Hypocritical much?

quietrich - Where did I say that you had set a trap? Rick unfortunately fell into a trap of his own making. It is too easy to respond to provocative comments by resorting to insults. I've fallen into the same trap occasionally myself, but I don't condone it. It becomes unpleasant for all involved, and is counter-productive.

As I've said before, I understand where you are coming from and I'm fully behind your concerns for the environment. In my opinion, you do have a tendency to be self-righteous and your comments do tend to be provocative. None of us are perfect, certainly not myself.

I hope that all concerned in this discussion can accept that we sometimes have different viewpoints, but there is no need for anyone to become over-defensive and respond with offensive comments.

quiet rich,you should be much more quiet until you rise above leftist drivel and learn that Greenland was named for, , when it was much warmer than today and was GREEN,and melting ice sheets allowed humans to flourish

Quietrich, Entoman, you deserve each other.

Don't you know the bird is a word?
https://youtu.be/9AZA6fREkoA

You have a point. I’m starting to like the original a bit more but for some reason these wide crops appeal to me more. Maybe because i wanna go into film and 2.35:1 is my favorite aspect ratio

The crop isn't ideal for a postage stamp image, but in a large print it is awesome. it puts you in the boat where the photographer was.

For me it just feels like the bottom left quarter of the image is kind of unnecessary. I believe you get a similar effect with my cropped one.

The original photograph by Erez is excellent as it stands, and I don't consider the foreground to be "unnnecessary compositional trash", BUT I do prefer InternetEnzyme's wide crop, as it concentrates more of the viewers attention on the bird, which is an important element in the composition.

Whether or not the bird was "left in" intentionally, or indeed whether Erez deliberately waited for a bird to appear in the right position, is a question only he can answer. He makes no mention of the bird in the text, so perhaps it was accidental. Either way, a fine photograph.

Yeah, I did use some needlessly harsh adjectives. Don’t get me wrong, I think the original photo is pretty great. But to my eye a wider crop is more pleasing.

Some images do indeed look better with items in the composition to draw you into the center of the image but in this one it is not required, like you illustrated in your crop, the scene is spectacular enough that the ultra wide angle view is not necessary to make it interesting.

@Internet Enzyme: Personally I really like wide angle shots like these for the diverging perspective (or whatever it might be called), the way the corners lead in and out of the image.
However, I do agree that 2.3:1 is a great landscape ratio which is why my next camera will be a high Mpix body. You can crop a 42 Mpix file to 2.35:1 @ 27Mpix! You can also then 'tilt' the crop up or down for foreground or sky.
[I have done a lot of stitching pano's, it has numerous limitations for the results I want].

"Compositional trash"...?

You really can't see what is going on there, can you?

You should have taken a bit more off the left.

But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the photographer took more than one shot out there and just prefered this one due to it's increased sense of depth and scale.

I prefer the crop too (although I would have also taken a bit more off the left), but that's just a taste thing. I would have just used a longer lens here. I like the bird.

I just don't get the appeal of UWA images where the main thing of interest (that ice fin and its reflection for me) isn't in the foreground. And knowing that my main thing of interest here would look a lot bigger if I saw it my own eyes (although I'd be in a sea kayak, one day...) just annoys me.

Lots of people love the going-to-warp-speed thing in lots of UWA images, but I never have.

I think paraphrasing of the old adage applies here: " Opinions (of the best image crops) are like A-holes . . . everyone has one!"

Until ice takes over.

I really like the bird. It makes the image more realistic.

The flippin' arrogance! The photographer took the image he saw and presented it the way he wanted and got a spectacular, award-winning result. To suggest you could do better by faking the photo more (assuming there has already been some post-processing) and removing a key element suggests the point of view of someone who doesn't even want to know the real world. Thank goodness you people haven't got the original raw files to work with.

Here's an idea - find a boat and get your own raw files.

And the bird makes the picture...

> And the bird makes the picture...

Wouldn't go as far... But agree with the rest.

And I thought that was a dried speck of insect on my monitor! LOL!

Because in my personal opinion there is a limit to the amount of adding saturisation and other settings to a landscape image up to where I would call it photography and where something else begins. For me, a photo should make the impression that is in line with the impression I would have when I would have been on the site at the same moment.
Sometimes I hesitate to believe some landscape photography images, especially in cases where I have been on exacly the same spot at a similar moment of the day.
In this case, I just don't know, I haven't been near this place by far.

@leonp you obviously never shot Velvia slide film if that your requirement for landscape images.

leon - shooting Raw, the aim is to gather as much information as possible and then process. Generally, most people expose to the right, so the "zeroed" RAW will look very washed out and flat.

This sort of plastic, super-saturated, unrealistic look has been fashionable for a long time, but going by most competition winners in the past year or so, the vogue seems to be for very low saturation images. Which are equally "unrealistic".

Maybe the next fashion will be for neutral images? Those tend to stand the test of time.

I have seen skies with that much saturation I haven't touched the saturation slide set in years all you need to do is ad contrast and the colors wil pop as they did when the image ease taken

Adding contrast without isolating the colour is effectively the same thing as adding saturation. It does the same thing (whilst simultaneously adding luminosity contrast).

To add contrast without increasing saturation one must work on the luminosity channel only (LAB) or use software like Photoshop and use the luminosity blending mode. That's the "correct" way to do it (correct meaning you want to add contrast without adding saturation) so you have independent control over saturation and contrast.

If an image is beautiful that is all that matters in my mind. What difference if the tools are wheel and clay, brush and paint, or camera and software? There has never been a photographer that didn't post process in some way.

> shooting Raw, the aim is to gather as much information
> as possible and then process.

OMG...

BadScience, that could be *your* aim. My aim while shooting RAW is not to inadvertently lose any important information (such as blown highlights, or WB).

ETTR and enormous DR of modern cameras are great things, but they also damaged landscape photography beyond repair -- 9 out of 10 images showcased here at DPR are absolutely artificial, failing miserably at allowing me to see scenes as photographers saw them, to "be there". Obsession with "pop" kills them for me (and, I believe, for future viewers, for when this fad subsides; think about 80th hairstyles...).

This Fire and Ice image does not, actually, look "overdone". It's a border case for me. A better example of that would be this ruined magnificent shot: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0679625295/photo-of-the-week-dubai-cityscape-draped-in-fog

Bottom line, the OP has a point.

"omg"? how old are you? 12?

What is the real world difference between "not to inadvertently lose any important information (such as blown highlights, or WB)"

and

"much information as possible"

and WB is irrelevant....

You don't seem to understand ETTR it seems. Over-exposing, then pulling back in processing, produces a cleaner image with more information and less noise. It's absolutely the correct way to shoot digital to reproduce the scene as accurately as possible.

Image has been taken on 8/2/2015.

The two years are irrelevant. As I wrote, it must be close to summer solstice, when the sun rises very early in the northern hemishpere. The year is irrelevant and never mentioned. Analysing landscape photos I admire to possibly get a similar result is often about analysing the light, hard, soft, direct, shadow, direction. In the above photo, i know a 2am sunrise photo must be taken either very far north or south of the equator and ar or near the solstice. I bet today sunrise would be around mid-morning. Around Christmas sunrise might be around 10-11am.

"... of the Week" - does that mean the week it was shot, developed, presented, published? So very many different interpretations, and I think that DPR means "The photo we showcase this week".