Andrew,
mudder wrote:gstark wrote:... I'm wondering what our friend energypolice might have to say about this, given that a sunrise is one of god's most sublime creations., yet it contains a range of contrasts way beyone those that it's possible to ordinarily capture within the scope of of mere digicam.
Tsk, tsk tsk
I can see you waving a red rag at a bull...
Perhaps, but at the end of the day, it's actually a very serious question.
Michael has his point of view, which, while I respect his entitlement to it, I believe is not simply restrictive, I think it's actually very illogical and quite full of holes.
In your image we clearly have something that exists in real life, and through the wonders of the way human sight works, if we're fortunate enough (and not as lazy as some of us ... ok, me ) to be able to enjoy first hand, then we will truly see a miracle of light, as painted by nature and/or whatever greater diety we might or might not belive in.
But the realities of
modern day film emulsions and
modern day digital photography are such that they still have a very long way to go before they can even begin to approach the capabilities of the human eye, and it's only with some elements of post processing that we are able to bring to the fore something as beautiful as you have done here.
I think I'd be correct in sugesting that the raw image, out of the camera, doesn't look as good as what you've presented here. And I think I'd be also correct in saying that you needed to do not all that much in terms of PP to the file in order to bring it to the state that you've shown it to us in.
So the point, and the question for Michael, should he decide to not act like a troll, but engage in serious discussion on this point, is that here we have an image of a very natural, every day occurrence, that in its raw state simply isn't capable of being captured by any means in a manner that is truly representative of what you would have observed.
Yet Michael would, by my understanding of his PoV, call what you have done a misrepresentation and perhaps even "art".
I would say that only after you have brought out the image to its hidden potential have you produced a photo, but with respect and without wanting to offend you, I'm not entirely sure that I'd necessarily call every photographic image "art".
Some are, some are not, and it's really byond the scope of my fields of expertise to try to define that can of worms.
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:52 pm
), so firstly I tried to address that using a LAB color curve
