In 'the old days' natural light simply meant no flash of artificial light.
Ansel Adams shot with natural light but none should think his images anything but the product of a master manipulator of light and shadow.
So my question is…
does a digital picture taken with only 'natural light' but digitally enhanced still qualify as 'natural?'
How much can a picture be 'tweaked' before it becomes 'unatural?'
Last rounds 'Stonehenge' comes to mind.
Just curious.
Originally posted by PaulieGet a grip, Jack! It was an inside joke (apprently so inside that Wucky didn't get it). I in no way intended to denigrate her viewpoint, and I let her know that via a private message.
I agree. Lets not turn this thread into a bitching contest. Rag`s done a fair bit to set this up, so if a person doesnt agree with another persons views, so f****ng what.
There is no need to get personal so BACK THE **** OFF ðŸ˜
Thanks for coming to her defense - though she's pretty tough and can usually handle that herself. Very galant of you....😀
Originally posted by ictoanThis is all for fun.. I don't think anyone is too serious here.
In 'the old days' natural light simply meant no flash of artificial light.
Ansel Adams shot with natural light but none should think his images anything but the product of a master manipulator of light and shadow.
So my question is…
does a digital picture taken with only 'natural light' but digitally enhanced still qualify as 'natural?'
How much ca ...[text shortened]... aked' before it becomes 'unatural?'
Last rounds 'Stonehenge' comes to mind.
Just curious.
We can't comment on the last round pics until Rag has closed it for voting. In therory we are supposed to declare photo shop use but when I did in round one I got slagged. There have been some in round two and three that have been masked filtered dodged and burnt with no declaration or discussion.
In magazine or club comps you include camera, lens, settings and any work done to achieve the finished result. This so people can learn from your technique.
Originally posted by Tirau DanI think you'd have been slagged more if you hadn't declared it.
This is all for fun.. I don't think anyone is too serious here.
We can't comment on the last round pics until Rag has closed it for voting. In therory we are supposed to declare photo shop use but when I did in round one I got slagged. There have been some in round two and three that have been masked filtered dodged and burnt with no declaration or ...[text shortened]... nd any work done to achieve the finished result. This so people can learn from your technique.
People should still declare any work they have done to the pic, that amounts to more than a simple cropping. In the last round, Stone Henge's caption was "just messed with the colours". I'm guessing 22. Power was altered as well, but I forgot to clarify that with the taker. 26. Amalgamation is obviously heavily photoshopped so I didn't think it needed a declaration.
The only pic from the previous round: Natural Wonders, that looks (to me) edited is Ice Fingers.
D
Originally posted by ictoanNatural light. What I meant when I said it initially was sunlight filtering through clouds, or interesting light and shadow pics, or Northern Lights, lightning, sunrises/sunsets, etc.
In 'the old days' natural light simply meant no flash of artificial light.
Ansel Adams shot with natural light but none should think his images anything but the product of a master manipulator of light and shadow.
So my question is…
does a digital picture taken with only 'natural light' but digitally enhanced still qualify as 'natural?'
How much ca ...[text shortened]... aked' before it becomes 'unatural?'
Last rounds 'Stonehenge' comes to mind.
Just curious.
I think the above rules out the use of flashes and other unnatura l lights.
I think tweaking is fine, so long as it is declared. If it is declared, then at least the voter can decide whether they vote for a picture because they really like the pic, or because they like the authenticity of the pic.
Stone henge was declared as having been tweaked.
D
And the winner is: Nordlys with a massive 99 points.
RankNamePhotographerPoints
124. Music for the Eye:Nordlys99
204. Wideangle:DdV72
305. dolmen:DdV62
417. Reaching Out:Nicolais54
534. The After World:Evolutionary52
606. organic:DdV45
710. Shame about the Thumbprint:rhb41
835. Lincoln Memorial:ictoan35
915. Eternity:The Plumber33
1028. Selfridges:kyngj30
1120. War Culture:Tirau Dan29
1223. Drying Fish:Nordlys18
1319. Abandoned:BuffaloBill14
1430. Shroud:Ragnorak14
1533. Man and Nature Collide:Ragnorak14
1621. Traction Engine:Tirau Dan10
1726. Amalgamated:ictoan10
1825. Temppeliaukio Church, Helsinki:Nordlys9
1927. Cog Steamer:kyngj9
2008. Transformer:dweezil7
2107. Skyway:dweezil6
2222. Power:Tirau Dan6
2302. Gone Fishing:Paulie5
2416. Train Flagstaff:Phil Nutley5
2532. Sydney:Evolutionary4
2612. Gateway:The Plumber3
2714. Leaning Tower:Phil Nutley3
2818. Conductor:Nicolais3
2931. Genocide:Ragnorak3
3001. Stone Henge:Paulie1
3113. Florence:Phil Nutley1
3203. The Heavenly Taste Test:Darvlay0
3309. Brewery:dweezil0
3411. Touting for Business:rhb0
3529. Baker Library:kyngj0
Comments/critique/feedback?
D
Originally posted by NicolaiSWell done.
Fourth place ... I am honoured. Thanks to all who voted for this picture taken during a trip to La Isla Bonita ( La Palma ) in februari 2004.
I used a Sony Cyber-shot 5.0 megapixels and haven't altered anything.
I'm also well chuffed with my 7th place picture... taken at Cley (Norfolk) in July 2005 using a Cannon EOS 300 (35mm).
I'm terrified of heights and the shaky platform I was stood on to take the photo was doing me no favours having climbed 4 ladders to get there. I was just pleased to get the shot in the end!
Big well done to Nordlys - are you going for the Grand Slam?