I find the "ethical" debate to be fascinating. Speaking of Ansel Adams, I have to wonder what he would do with Photoshop. One of his well known sayings is "The negative is similar to a musicians score, and the print to the performance of that score. The negative only comes to life only when "performed" as a print" (pp. 2, The Print, Ansel Adams, ISBN 0-8212-2187-6).
For myself, any and all tools that help me achieve the image in my head are legimate. I am not doing forensic photography where the images may be used as evidence, I am just trying to make images that please me.
That being said, the better the image that you can create in your camera, the better the "raw material" you have to work with. While computers have made it easy to "fix" an image after it is taken, "fixing it in the mix," to borrow a phrase from the music world, is more just plain more work if nothing else.
"I guess what's troubling to me, at times, is the endless procession of landscapes with impossibly blue skies, lemon-yellow suns, and foliage that looks as though it was produced on a kindergarten easel with "Kaplan Kolor" finger paints, so improbably bright are the colors."
I agree completely Addison.
One of the most powerful images I ever recoreded (in my opinion) was of two IACC (International America's Cup Class) sailboats returning downwind in a very heavy fog.
The bottom of the boats are all that's visible, and the white sails and masts dissappear into the sea of fog and blend out into nothing, making it hard to determine what's fog what was the sail.
The original shot has almost no color to it whatsoever, just a slight brownish gray tone. But the power of the shot lies in the composition and feeling of dissappearing into the fog. It's too bad when images like these get left by the side, and the super-saturated sunsets get 1000 views and 100 comments.
You've opened a new window for me, and changed my perspective on digital photography. Any tool brought to bear is a legitimate tool, if the end result is to reproduce what we saw accurately.
I guess what's troubling to me, at times, is the endless procession of landscapes with impossibly blue skies, lemon-yellow suns, and foliage that looks as though it was produced on a kindergarten easel with "Kaplan Kolor" finger paints, so improbably bright are the colors.
Makes it impossible for naturally captured photos to compete?a little like Pamela Sue Anderson's "enhancements" rendering invisible her "sisters" at a beach barbecue for returning GIs.
So, I guess Poor Richard had it right, then: "Moderation in all things."
Excellent ideas and well-put Addison. We certainly push ourselves to the extremes to get what we see on camera.
I think in a scene like this, a graduted neutral density filter would have helped, and also would have avoided the PS ethical debate, capturing the scene in one exposure.
Also, I'm a big beliver that nothing that you capture with your camera is "real" anymore than a painting or other illustrative artistic representation of reality. I think we are trying to present our view of captured reality, and for me, I'm trying to get as close to what I saw at the time I took the pictures in the first place. The best way I have found to do that is by mimicing the way the human eye/visuals works...by compositing multiple light and dark views of the same scene into one cohesive image.
I think at the end of the day, we are all just trying to represent the views and scenes we see in our lives. We will always be limited by the equipment we use to do this. It's really just a question of technique and equipment in regards to the complexity of the scenes we are trying to capture.
Feel free to e-mail me at huntergraphics@verizon.net if you feel the need. However, I think the dialogue that takes place here is an important part of Usefilm, and I wouldn't worry about adding too many comments to your images, you ovb. aren't trying to do that.
Thanks, and back-atcha, Jim. Just visited your collection, and your images are incredible.
As a newcomer to this site, I'm just learning the protocols, and don't know how I should respond to all kindly comments and encouragement. I wish there were a way to respond via email, off-site, to people who are particularly helpful. I don't want to boost an image's "comment" number, for example, by posting, "Thank You!" to every kind soul that offers, "Nice picture!"
In the few years that I've spent taking pictures, I've learned one thing: The most gifted photographers are also, typically, the folks with the most time on their hands! If you have a couple of hours a week to shoot snaps?and your one opportunity to capture a mountain vista involves shooting dead into the sun?then you shoot dead into the sun, pack up your thermos, and head home.
In this "digital age," I need to befriend somebody proficient at pixel-pushing via PhotoShop, because, then, issues such as blown-out skies might be reduced to less of a hurdle. Hard to know whether it's better to invest scant resources (time/money) in camera equipment and time spent shooting, or divert funds toward expensive software and hours "tweaking" in the post-shoot computer lab...
For me, too, there's a fine line between capturing an image, honestly, with one's camera?accepting what nature and circumstances afford?and/or "painting" a fantasy in the post-shoot digital darkroom.
I'm a little uneasy with the idea, for instance, of taking several shots at different exposure settings and then "compositing" a scene via digital remixing. One may, in this way, produce a "pretty picture," but that image never existed in the "real world," any more than did, say, Van Gogh's "Starry Night".
I don't mean to sound defensive?Chris's input is excellent and dead on the mark?but these are the sorts of ethical, technical, and philosophical conundrums never contemplated by Ansel Adams. :)
Good suggestions, Chris. Nightmarish shooting conditions, to be sure. 12,000' + 40 mph winds, + 28 degrees + plus blinding snow/sun.
Went up Hwy 82 on an impulse the day before they closed Independence Pass for the winter. I was dressed in jeans and a long-sleeved flannel shirt. Got out, walked a couple hundred yards to this overlook, and about died from exposure trying to get back to the car in knee-deep snow.
Stupid.
Next time I'll venture out prepared to spend time, take multiple exposures, fiddle with exposure setting, etc. (:O)
Wow a pretty incredible landscape. The sense of scale is just huge. The sky is fairly blown-out, double exposures or ND grads cold have helped there. The lighting on the trees and moutain sides is really nice.
0 
