Scene altered by B/G polarizer

[Mohit]

While walking through a wooded wildlife management area, I came across this swamp area. It was a cold, bleak scene, and I experimented a bit with my Singh-Ray Blue/Gold polarizer (Cokin P holder) on my 28-135IS lens.

What do you think?

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Forgot to mention, I also used a Singh-Ray 2-stop soft edge Neutral Density filter in front of the polarizer.

 

[Sebastien57836]

I think this is how the world will look like after a nuclear war.

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Mohit,

I think that if you were trying to exchange "bluish' for "pinkish', ...you succeeded.

Why-or-whether is a subjective call.

I probably would have chosen to have a photo of a cold, bleak scene say "cold and bleak". In other words emphasize the reality, rather than try to change it into something it wasn't..

But that's a personal preference, ...I like to capture REAL beauty when and as I find it, rather than seeing what I can do with computer magic or a set of "crayons".

You are of course perfectly right to choose your individual approach, as it pleases YOU, ...but you asked what we thought

Larry

While walking through a wooded wildlife management area, I came
across this swamp area. It was a cold, bleak scene, and I
experimented a bit with my Singh-Ray Blue/Gold polarizer (Cokin P
holder) on my 28-135IS lens.

What do you think?

• Mohit

 

[Mike Flaherty]

Hi, Mohit. That is a wonderful image. I am envious. Can you tell me what font you use for your Copyright Logo? I particularly like that font. Thank you.

Mike Flaherty

While walking through a wooded wildlife management area, I came
across this swamp area. It was a cold, bleak scene, and I
experimented a bit with my Singh-Ray Blue/Gold polarizer (Cokin P
holder) on my 28-135IS lens.

What do you think?

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Hi Larry,

I initially tried to create a colder, bluish image, and then experimented with warming it up significantly. For me, this image works because of the opposing ideas of warmth in a bleak landscape.

It would have been good even if I'd "emphasized reality", as you put it.

As far as your statement about "capturing REAL beauty, rather than computer magic", I view photography as enabling a creative vision that each photographer has for a scene. What makes one person's reality any more valid than another's? You are an artist, utilizing your camera and any filters (be they optical at the time of creation or digital after the fact) to create the image as you envision it. If substantial alteration has been done, it is important to note that for the sake of truthfulness. But it shouldn't stop one from experimenting to get a different look.

Thanks for your comments, Larry. It is good to discuss varying views on this topic . And I do appreciate yours.

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Hi, Mohit. That is a wonderful image. I am envious. Can you tell
me what font you use for your Copyright Logo? I particularly like
that font. Thank you.

Thanks Mike! The font is called "Benjamin" - it only has upper case characters. I scoured some web sites looking for a downloadable font that I liked, and this is one of them. I forget exactly where I got it from, but I've put it up for download at http://www.mcconcept.com/images/Benjamin.zip

• Mohit

 

[Roger Levit]

Hi, Mohit. That is a wonderful image. I am envious. Can you tell
me what font you use for your Copyright Logo? I particularly like
that font. Thank you.

Thanks Mike! The font is called "Benjamin" - it only has upper
case characters. I scoured some web sites looking for a
downloadable font that I liked, and this is one of them. I forget
exactly where I got it from, but I've put it up for download at
http://www.mcconcept.com/images/Benjamin.zip

• Mohit

You ended up with an excellent picture. I agree with your comments. Reality is in the eye of the beholder.

Roger

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Hi Larry,

I initially tried to create a colder, bluish image, and then
experimented with warming it up significantly. For me, this image
works because of the opposing ideas of warmth in a bleak landscape.

It would have been good even if I'd "emphasized reality", as you
put it.

As far as your statement about "capturing REAL beauty, rather than
computer magic", I view photography as enabling a creative vision
that each photographer has for a scene. What makes one person's
reality any more valid than another's?

Mohit, ...I didn't say anything about "more valid". I was simply stating MY preference, while acknowledging YOUR right to "prefer"differently .

Re. individual philosophies: I respect, admire, etc., any "artist's" efforts to "create", however imaginatively (with the exception of the type of painting mentioned below :-( ), ...whether-or-not I admire the result.

But my OWN goal is to explore the world around me, finding, appreciating and capturing it AS I found it (as nearly as can be reasonably done) and keeping it as a reminder/re-experience of that particular "discovery". In this sense, the "creating" has already-been-done. My efforts are directed at discovery, appreciation, recording and (to a degree) re-experiencing/sharing.

It is simply what I like to do.

I am just less interested in what "magic' can be worked with computer art, Photoshop, Disney studios, etc., than I am in what beauty can be found in nature. ( I'm reminded of the romanticised/idealized paintings popular during America's "discovery of the West" days;...obligatory waterfall, rainbow, dramatic sunset, lake/river, majestic peaks(with silhouetted majestic elk), towering trees, fruited plain, flowered meadow, ...let's see, did we forget anything? Oh yeah! We can have a unicorn over here, sprinkle a few butterflies around, and what the hell, ...put a fairy or two here by the toadstools. YIKES, nearly forgot the songbirds in the tree and the soaring eagle! ( Won't use the lightening-spewing thunderclouds this time, ...THAT would be too-much. You bet, subtlety...that's the ticket! )

Look, it's twin "artistes"!

No wait, it's just one, "beside himself"over his art.

Please pass the barf-bag.

If there was (of course there isn't) a camera/lens/image-receiving medium that could deliver a print that did not vary, in color, brightness, etc. from what I saw with me eyes, I would prefer it. The challenge that appeals to me is to FIND the scene (at the particular moment, in the particular light, etc) that is such that I will consider the print/memory a personal 'treasure", and then do-it what justice I am able, with my photographic skills(if any), and equipment.

My "treasure" may of course, be someone else's "trash, ...and vice-versa.

"Wouldn't it maybe be neat if it were yellow, striped, polka-dotted, swirled, more-saturated, etc.?" only fits my purpose if it helps it look the way I saw it.

There is a difference between trying to create a pleasing image, ...and trying to capture an actual visual experience. (The use of PS/other techniques toward-this-end, but not beyond-it, would befit my intent.)

I have seen threads like this before turn into arguments. I want no part of another one, ..to each his own. If someone enjoys "creative experimentation", more power to him. Quite-likely he will come up with images that please him, ...certainly the tools are there, today more than ever.

Like you said, ..."varying views".I don't claim to know anything about what is "better", ...except for me.

Best wishes,

Larry

You are an artist,

utilizing your camera and any filters (be they optical at the time
of creation or digital after the fact) to create the image as you
envision it. If substantial alteration has been done, it is
important to note that for the sake of truthfulness. But it
shouldn't stop one from experimenting to get a different look.

Thanks for your comments, Larry. It is good to discuss varying
views on this topic . And I do appreciate yours.

• Mohit

 

[billyboy]

While walking through a wooded wildlife management area, I came
across this swamp area. It was a cold, bleak scene, and I
experimented a bit with my Singh-Ray Blue/Gold polarizer (Cokin P
holder) on my 28-135IS lens.

What do you think?

To be very honest with you, I think you should have stuck with cold & bleak . . .

 

[Bryan29453]

Mohit,

This is not a cop-out but I agree with both you and Larry

I agree with Larry with a point that I do my utmost to record the day as it is. Occasionally I cheat with filiters to correct a sky which although showing white/grey clouds now may not do so in the final image. So basically in a perfect photographic world I would leave life as it is.

However, I also respect the wishes of others where they want to change the world to what it is not (photographically speaking I hasten to add) and with that in mind I complement you on what you have achieved, especially if you enjoy it - which is what photography is all about.

Not a cop out - just supporting you both

KRs

Bryan

Hi Larry,

I initially tried to create a colder, bluish image, and then
experimented with warming it up significantly. For me, this image
works because of the opposing ideas of warmth in a bleak landscape.

It would have been good even if I'd "emphasized reality", as you
put it.

As far as your statement about "capturing REAL beauty, rather than
computer magic", I view photography as enabling a creative vision
that each photographer has for a scene. What makes one person's
reality any more valid than another's?

Mohit, ...I didn't say anything about "more valid". I was simply
stating MY preference, while acknowledging YOUR right to
"prefer"differently .

Re. individual philosophies: I respect, admire, etc., any
"artist's" efforts to "create", however imaginatively (with the
exception of the type of painting mentioned below :-( ),
...whether-or-not I admire the result.

But my OWN goal is to explore the world around me, finding,
appreciating and capturing it AS I found it (as nearly as can be
reasonably done) and keeping it as a reminder/re-experience of that
particular "discovery". In this sense, the "creating" has
already-been-done. My efforts are directed at discovery,
appreciation, recording and (to a degree) re-experiencing/sharing.

It is simply what I like to do.

I am just less interested in what "magic' can be worked with
computer art, Photoshop, Disney studios, etc., than I am in what
beauty can be found in nature. ( I'm reminded of the
romanticised/idealized paintings popular during America's
"discovery of the West" days;...obligatory waterfall, rainbow,
dramatic sunset, lake/river, majestic peaks(with silhouetted
majestic elk), towering trees, fruited plain, flowered meadow,
...let's see, did we forget anything? Oh yeah! We can have a
unicorn over here, sprinkle a few butterflies around, and what the
hell, ...put a fairy or two here by the toadstools. YIKES, nearly
forgot the songbirds in the tree and the soaring eagle! ( Won't use
the lightening-spewing thunderclouds this time, ...THAT would be
too-much. You bet, subtlety...that's the ticket! )

Look, it's twin "artistes"!

No wait, it's just one, "beside himself"over his art.

Please pass the barf-bag.

If there was (of course there isn't) a camera/lens/image-receiving
medium that could deliver a print that did not vary, in color,
brightness, etc. from what I saw with me eyes, I would prefer it.
The challenge that appeals to me is to FIND the scene (at the
particular moment, in the particular light, etc) that is such that
I will consider the print/memory a personal 'treasure", and then
do-it what justice I am able, with my photographic skills(if any),
and equipment.

My "treasure" may of course, be someone else's "trash, ...and
vice-versa.

"Wouldn't it maybe be neat if it were yellow, striped,
polka-dotted, swirled, more-saturated, etc.?" only fits my purpose
if it helps it look the way I saw it.

There is a difference between trying to create a pleasing image,
...and trying to capture an actual visual experience. (The use of
PS/other techniques toward-this-end, but not beyond-it, would befit
my intent.)

I have seen threads like this before turn into arguments. I want no
part of another one, ..to each his own. If someone enjoys "creative
experimentation", more power to him. Quite-likely he will come up
with images that please him, ...certainly the tools are there,
today more than ever.

Like you said, ..."varying views".I don't claim to know anything
about what is "better", ...except for me.

Best wishes,

Larry

You are an artist,

utilizing your camera and any filters (be they optical at the time
of creation or digital after the fact) to create the image as you
envision it. If substantial alteration has been done, it is
important to note that for the sake of truthfulness. But it
shouldn't stop one from experimenting to get a different look.

Thanks for your comments, Larry. It is good to discuss varying
views on this topic . And I do appreciate yours.

• Mohit

 

[Mike Flaherty]

Hi, Mohit. Downloaded and installed the font. Thanks very much for your generosity and time. I appreciate it.

Mike Flaherty

Hi, Mohit. That is a wonderful image. I am envious. Can you tell
me what font you use for your Copyright Logo? I particularly like
that font. Thank you.

Thanks Mike! The font is called "Benjamin" - it only has upper
case characters. I scoured some web sites looking for a
downloadable font that I liked, and this is one of them. I forget
exactly where I got it from, but I've put it up for download at
http://www.mcconcept.com/images/Benjamin.zip

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Larry,

I don't disagree with you, and this is certainly not a contentious flame war. We just have different views on what we're looking for when creating an image. Neither is wrong.

Thanks for your comments, I'm glad you made them. As you've seen from other messages in this thread, there are many who agree with each viewpoint.

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Bryan,

Not a cop out - just supporting you both

I totally understand, and agree with both views too...

KRs

Keeping it Real?

• Mohit

 

[Mohit]

Here's the same image but with a colder look to it. I wonder if some didn't like the first image because I mentioned what the scene actually looked like? This one is not necessarily closer to the real view, just another interpretation.

Just trying out different stuff ...

• Mohit

 

[Fred Miranda]

Mohit,
I liked the first version better!
BTW: Have you tried the Colkin gradual filters?

I have heard that Singh-Ray filters do not scratch as easily and do not introduce color cast because of their neutrality.

What do you think?

Fred Miranda

Here's the same image but with a colder look to it. I wonder if
some didn't like the first image because I mentioned what the scene
actually looked like? This one is not necessarily closer to the
real view, just another interpretation.

Just trying out different stuff ...

• Mohit

 

[Dude Steve]

I used the Cokin 'P' Series ND "grey" grad (umm...#121, I think). It's not even remotely neutral, and yeah, it scratches incredibly easily.

I just switch to the hi-tech ND grads (about US$40/each) and so far am very pleased with them. Some say the're very close to the Singh-Ray' and some say there's still a world of difference between them and the S-R's...but they're pretty darn good so far.

-Steve

What do you think?

Fred Miranda

Here's the same image but with a colder look to it. I wonder if
some didn't like the first image because I mentioned what the scene
actually looked like? This one is not necessarily closer to the
real view, just another interpretation.

Just trying out different stuff ...

• Mohit

 

[Dude Steve]

Oh, BTW, I like the second version a LOT better. Just my personal pref.

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Larry,

I don't disagree with you, and this is certainly not a contentious
flame war. We just have different views on what we're looking for
when creating an image. Neither is wrong.

Thanks for your comments, I'm glad you made them. As you've seen
from other messages in this thread, there are many who agree with
each viewpoint.

• Mohit

Yes, I agree, ...flameless discussion. It's always interesting to hear how others percieve things.

My preference for the 2nd version may have to do with the fact that I have spent many days in such surroundings, so this one looks more "right" to me, ...more like the actual scene might look in afternoon light. (and of course, I'm not saying it IS more right, in any absolute sense)

Then, if I were to put on rose-colored glasses, I'd expect something like version "1.

Thanks, Mohit, for sharing them!

Larry

 

[Mohit]

Fred,

I liked the first version better!

Isn't it interesting how everyone reacts differently to the images - there are lots of people strongly preferring one over the other.

BTW: Have you tried the Colkin gradual filters?
I have heard that Singh-Ray filters do not scratch as easily and do
not introduce color cast because of their neutrality.

What do you think?

I haven't tried the Cokin grads because I learnt that they're not neutral at all. So I just went with the Singh-Ray's instead, which are totally neutral. They're more expensive, at $100 for the Cokin-P holder, but they really are very nice.

• Mohit