How far should you go to manipulate your milky way shot?

[wenjieqiao]

Hi fellow photographers,

I would like to get opinions about the type of manipulation to those milky way shots athttps://iso.500px.com/breathtaking-photos-of-the-milky-way-over-yosemite.

I am cool with shooting foreground and milky way separately and then compose them into one shot. We all do that because the limitation of camera sensor. For me, the milky way has to be at the exact same location when blending two images together. However, if you ever shot milky way at yosemite np, you know the milky way in those shots are impossible. You can never have the milky way center (core) above the yosemite fall as it is facing north. Nor the El Capitan. The most ridiculous one is his 5th and 6th photos (see below) where he simply flipped the same milky way and compose into two different foregrounds. Actually either position was possible.



View: original size



View: original size

Well, if he confessed it by saying those shots were just for fun and they are not real, that's fine but here is what he said

"Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together into an image that mimics the beauty of really being there. So if you can’t make it to Yosemite for a while, I hope you enjoy the beauty in these photos!"

Mimic what? Something doesn't even exist in the real world? Even if you make to the Yosemite, you will never see these scenes.

Please tell me what you think about this type of shots. If that's the way to go, what's the point of us waiting hours at dark for the milky way to get to the right spot? It is not that we don't know how to ps, but we want to keep the integrity of landscape photography. BTW, he is a 500px editor so if you don't want to cause trouble for yourself for not being able to be selected as editorial choice, you don't have to reply

Regards,

-David

 

[BlazerFan]

First of all the Milky Way is the entire galaxy in which our solar system is a part of. You cant wait for the Milky Way to get in the right position. What you see in this type of photo is an extremely small sliver of the Milky Way.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

But overall I'm too distracted with whatever it is I'm trying to do with cameras to let what others are doing disturb me. If someone wants to use photography as a basis for composite art, more power to them. That's not part of my motives, but it takes all manner of motives to make this world go around.

My wife tells me that my photos of many locations leave her disappointed - when she visits those locations (because the photos make the locales look much more appealing). Selective compositions with tonal and color manipulations. . . aren't such post tweaks just as dishonest as your example?

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

 

[windsprite]

"The sky is the limit."

Julie

 

[buybuybuy]

If the "sky's the limit" as some here claim, then why doesn't he also "move mountains"--to use another tired cliche?

The photographer seems to take greater liberty with his positioning of the Milky Way simply because he does not expect a largely unsuspecting/ignorant viewership to hold him accountable for it. However, had he tried to do likewise with the land--say, by moving a mountain or a body of water--the response would have been decidedly more vigorous (and not in a good way)!

I do NOT condone his lack of transparency.

 

[wenjieqiao]

First of all the Milky Way is the entire galaxy in which our solar system is a part of. You cant wait for the Milky Way to get in the right position. What you see in this type of photo is an extremely small sliver of the Milky Way.

 

[wenjieqiao]

But overall I'm too distracted with whatever it is I'm trying to do with cameras to let what others are doing disturb me. If someone wants to use photography as a basis for composite art, more power to them. That's not part of my motives, but it takes all manner of motives to make this world go around.

My wife tells me that my photos of many locations leave her disappointed - when she visits those locations (because the photos make the locales look much more appealing). Selective compositions with tonal and color manipulations. . . aren't such post tweaks just as dishonest as your example?

 

[buybuybuy]

First of all the Milky Way is the entire galaxy in which our solar system is a part of. You cant wait for the Milky Way to get in the right position. What you see in this type of photo is an extremely small sliver of the Milky Way.

 

[wenjieqiao]

If the "sky's the limit" as some here claim, then why doesn't he also "move mountains"--to use another tired cliche?

The photographer seems to take greater liberty with his positioning of the Milky Way simply because he does not expect a largely unsuspecting/ignorant viewership to hold him accountable for it. However, had he tried to do likewise with the land--say, by moving a mountain or a body of water--the response would have been decidedly more vigorous (and not in a good way)!

I do NOT condone his lack of transparency.

Totally agree.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

But overall I'm too distracted with whatever it is I'm trying to do with cameras to let what others are doing disturb me. If someone wants to use photography as a basis for composite art, more power to them. That's not part of my motives, but it takes all manner of motives to make this world go around.

My wife tells me that my photos of many locations leave her disappointed - when she visits those locations (because the photos make the locales look much more appealing). Selective compositions with tonal and color manipulations. . . aren't such post tweaks just as dishonest as your example?

 

[Bobo Hodls]

If the "sky's the limit" as some here claim, then why doesn't he also "move mountains"--to use another tired cliche?

The photographer seems to take greater liberty with his positioning of the Milky Way simply because he does not expect a largely unsuspecting/ignorant viewership to hold him accountable for it. However, had he tried to do likewise with the land--say, by moving a mountain or a body of water--the response would have been decidedly more vigorous (and not in a good way)!

I do NOT condone his lack of transparency.

It's as much a shot of the Milky Way with mountains superimposed as it is visa versa, no?

 

[Cane]

Do ya really care?

 

[buybuybuy]

If the "sky's the limit" as some here claim, then why doesn't he also "move mountains"--to use another tired cliche?

The photographer seems to take greater liberty with his positioning of the Milky Way simply because he does not expect a largely unsuspecting/ignorant viewership to hold him accountable for it. However, had he tried to do likewise with the land--say, by moving a mountain or a body of water--the response would have been decidedly more vigorous (and not in a good way)!

I do NOT condone his lack of transparency.

It's as much a shot of the Milky Way with mountains superimposed as it is visa versa, no?

--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.

I see what you're saying with the moon example. But do you draw the line somewhere or is it an "anything goes" perspective with respect to compositing? For example, if someone transplanted the Himalayas in place of the Rockies in a photo with Denver in the foreground, and suggested that it adequately represented the relative locations of objects therein (as did the photog in the OP's example), you'd be fine with it?

 

[Great Bustard]

Hi fellow photographers,

I would like to get opinions about the type of manipulation to those milky way shots athttps://iso.500px.com/breathtaking-photos-of-the-milky-way-over-yosemite.

I am cool with shooting foreground and milky way separately and then compose them into one shot. We all do that because the limitation of camera sensor. For me, the milky way has to be at the exact same location when blending two images together. However, if you ever shot milky way at yosemite np, you know the milky way in those shots are impossible. You can never have the milky way center (core) above the yosemite fall as it is facing north. Nor the El Capitan. The most ridiculous one is his 5th and 6th photos (see below) where he simply flipped the same milky way and compose into two different foregrounds. Actually either position was possible.



View: original size



View: original size

Well, if he confessed it by saying those shots were just for fun and they are not real, that's fine but here is what he said

"Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together into an image that mimics the beauty of really being there. So if you can’t make it to Yosemite for a while, I hope you enjoy the beauty in these photos!"

Mimic what? Something doesn't even exist in the real world? Even if you make to the Yosemite, you will never see these scenes.

Please tell me what you think about this type of shots. If that's the way to go, what's the point of us waiting hours at dark for the milky way to get to the right spot? It is not that we don't know how to ps, but we want to keep the integrity of landscape photography. BTW, he is a 500px editor so if you don't want to cause trouble for yourself for not being able to be selected as editorial choice, you don't have to reply

Regards,

-David

..if you do that kind of manipulation to make an average girl hot, but a whole different thing when you mess with astronomy. ;-)

 

[Cjar]

I don't like composites and I don't like those shots.

 

[AceP]

Hi fellow photographers,

I would like to get opinions about the type of manipulation to those milky way shots athttps://iso.500px.com/breathtaking-photos-of-the-milky-way-over-yosemite.

Well, if he confessed it by saying those shots were just for fun and they are not real, that's fine but here is what he said

"Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together into an image that mimics the beauty of really being there. So if you can’t make it to Yosemite for a while, I hope you enjoy the beauty in these photos!"

You miss the part right before that quote where he said:

"I also do sets of time-lapse photos throughout the night, which is a great way to have options for where you want to place the milky way in your final composite.

Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together..."

I'd say that pretty much is an admission of the final composite being "made up."

 

[wenjieqiao]

Hi fellow photographers,

I would like to get opinions about the type of manipulation to those milky way shots athttps://iso.500px.com/breathtaking-photos-of-the-milky-way-over-yosemite.

Well, if he confessed it by saying those shots were just for fun and they are not real, that's fine but here is what he said

"Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together into an image that mimics the beauty of really being there. So if you can’t make it to Yosemite for a while, I hope you enjoy the beauty in these photos!"

You miss the part right before that quote where he said:

"I also do sets of time-lapse photos throughout the night, which is a great way to have options for where you want to place the milky way in your final composite.

Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together..."

I'd say that pretty much is an admission of the final composite being "made up."

The description is far from what he actually did. And flipped the milky way?! No matter how many photos you took for timelapse, the milky way won't be flipped :-D

 

[Streakshooter]

It's normal for people to take offense to being deceived, but I think malicious intent is the standard for most of us (the difference between a harmless prank & an outright lie).

So, is failure to disclose such trickery the criteria for maliciousness? That's what the real question seems to be here. After all, what set the OP off was not the photos themselves, but the photographer's description of them.

For me, a composite fails if I can see the seams (not just literally) when it's clear that I wasn't meant to. But that doesn't make me mad, it makes me want to let the artist know that they could have managed a more complete deception. Of course, some composites (multiple exposures, sloppy cut & pastes for humorous purposes, etc.) are meant to be obvious even if they do work harmoniously together, but those are another matter entirely.

 

[tony field]

Well, if he confessed it by saying those shots were just for fun and they are not real, that's fine but here is what he said

"Once I have the two parts, I carefully blend the images together into an image that mimics the beauty of really being there. So if you can’t make it to Yosemite for a while, I hope you enjoy the beauty in these photos!"

Mimic what? Something doesn't even exist in the real world? Even if you make to the Yosemite, you will never see these scenes.

Please tell me what you think about this type of shots. If that's the way to go, what's the point of us waiting hours at dark for the milky way to get to the right spot? It is not that we don't know how to ps, but we want to keep the integrity of landscape photography. BTW, he is a 500px editor so if you don't want to cause trouble for yourself for not being able to be selected as editorial choice, you don't have to reply

Good gosh David, you really do seem to have your knickers in a twist.

As far as I can see, these are very pleasant photographs. For my taste, the only thing "wrong" to my eyes is, what I consider to be, inappropriate lighting between the sky and foreground - needs more work - otherwise good pictures.

Does landscape photography have "integrity" ?? All of the great photographers manipulate the images to greater and lesser degrees. They can represent their own figment of their artistic imagination any way they choose. Certainly Adam's Moonrise over Hernandez is a stunning illustration ... in particular if you read Adam's own description of how it was seen, done, and processed in the darkroom. He was lying with the image .. and you could never "see" the same thing that he delivered in his superb image.

If the photographer wants to montage the photo of Yosemite and the Milky Way, that is perfectly fine ... and he gave complete disclosure about the process he used. If you object to this, that is fine as well.

The degree of manipulation for "art" is unbounded. On the other hand, if you want to become members of the Royal American Landscape Photographers Of Reality, Texas chapter, maybe you do have to subscribe to their club rules.

Personally, if I photograph scenics, portraits, naked ladies, sports, and even dance and theatre, I think it is appropriate to take what ever means necessary to deliver good images. Usually, manipulation from slight to drastic will be done - and "manipulation" is a very broad term.

Photography (scenic or otherwise) is not about reality, it is more of an interpretation of reality.

I don't see that the Milky Way deserves to be frozen in reality any more than other images. Is the degree of interpretation relevant? A matter of opinion ....

--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[wenjieqiao]

Does landscape photography have "integrity" ??

I think it does. If you think the manipulation is unbound, call it "Find Art", not landscape photography.

Talking about Ansel Adam's photos, I thought of his the Moon and the Half Dome. The moon was there when he took the shot.

Many years later in 2009, a group of photographers gathered at the yosemite valley meadow trying to replicate the scene (https://www.flickr.com/groups/1324291@N22/) including Michael Frye. They didn't get the shot because of the cloud. Why bother waiting for so many years? Why not just paste a moon there? The next time to see the gibbous moon at this location is December 29, 2017. I am sure Michael will be there again, after waiting for another eight years. That's the integrity of landscape photography.