I enjoy film photos that demonstrate techniques that manipulate reality. There are a lot of digital photographers who don't realize that we did this sort of thing before Photoshop came along.
spectacular. In Free Land Buddhism there is a sutra about the Buddhafield and it has many pools with different colored sands and gems. This just looks Buddhafieldesque.
@northy not really sure what you mean. It is colour infrared film, which I know the characteristics of when composing, so deliberately choose shots which will highlight foliage or contrasts in it. We do the same thing when composing in b+w. on the other hand did Ansell Adams photo Moonrise over Hernandez exist in reality. Sure it is well known that he took the moon brilliantly, but he also worked with the negative when printing to produce an outcome that was not there. This is what makes it art, but it is also why great photographers work in the camera, with the negative in developing and then in processing the print. Sometimes we take a photo knowing that we can make it into a final product. In the case of this photo however, the adjustments are mostly tweaking.
i never actually read all the responses (which i will do now), but there was a fair bit of discussion as to what properly constitutes photography and the whole SOOC debate which lead into a digital vs. film debate...
i*m with you - the art is in the control exerted from camera settings and comp thru the entire processing and printing process :)
@northy it is why Ansell Adams wrote three books - The Camera, The Negative & The Print. Worth reading the Art of Photography by Bruce Barbaum which discusses this, and the so called rules
i never actually read all the responses (which i will do now), but there was a fair bit of discussion as to what properly constitutes photography and the whole SOOC debate which lead into a digital vs. film debate...
i*m with you - the art is in the control exerted from camera settings and comp thru the entire processing and printing process :)