Anger of Thyphon

Fred, Stephen and all others, thank you for adding your thoughts and critiques...

I would add here some of my thoughts as well as answers to your questions;

I understand the points you emphasize, nevertheless, I feel that a photographer should express his/her feelings and should reflect his/her vision and character to the viewers... Maybe, it sounds too sophisticated but I believe that this is an important mile stone for the future of a photographer. The vision and character of seeing the environment as a photographer, is a result of experience and awareness. In order to show the scenery to the viewers , as you perceive it during the making of the photo, the photographer has to achieve also some level in technical skills. After some stage of resolving the questions in your mind, Imagination and creativity take place. Beside that, I would like to emphasize that I am a classic style photographer. I don't like to add or substract anything from the nature. I try to show the colours as I saw during the making of the photo. I don't like to use agressively burning or dodging etc... Nevertheless, I try to produce creative ideas during the shoot, I try to use all possibilities the camera providing me and I try to use the processing software as effective as possible to obtain the optimum balance for the colour,contrast,sharpness etc... For blending of photos, my principle is again the same. Blending for me is the adjustment of the light, sharpness and different compositional elements of the scenery. The creativity for me doesn't mean the remaking of the photo by adding or substracting objects which was not existing in the actual time, but the use of the specialities of the camera as the shutter speed, aperture etc.. or the use of a model or adding a subject to your scene during the shoot or blending few photos without changing the overall colour,weather conditions or nature... If we take this specific photo of mine, I don't want to call it "manipulated" because of using slower shutter speed effect which makes the clouds look like airbrushed but "may be" because of the blending... In contrast, I feel lucky to have a tool like a camera which makes me creative...

If we keep all this data in one hand, I ask myself, why I am not using my imagination to create a photo with its natural elements and having my thoughts and vision inside. I think, that makes the difference for the photographers. Every photographer has got different interpretation of the same subject or scenery. Stephen, I think that gives an answer to your question. Even, in actual time now, millions of photos are made in the world. To be a good photographer, you have to "present" your scenery as unique as possible. I think, serious photographers, return to the same place many times in order to find the image they have created in their mind, different than others. There are millions of photos made in Cappadocia of Turkey. I have been there many times and I have hundreds of photos that I can present. But many of them are similar to thousand others. Every time I go there, I try to find something different to compose. I try to be out of ordinary. Many times, I am not successful to realize my plans but it helps everytime to see different compositions and to develop my style...

I didn't have any plan for the lighthouse before. Basically, the vertical shape of the lighthouse crossing the horizontal breakwater and the clouds were points of inspiration for me to realize the photo. For such dark clouds, some good movement on the sea has to be accepted, but the sea was calm. The only interesting element was the sky and the quality of the light. The clouds were moving even fast moving. The best way to show their dynamism was to use long exposure. It creates in the mind of the viewer a kind of confusion and drama. But the drama in the sky has to be balanced whether another drama or a contrasty silent atmosphere. The flat sea gave such a tranquil feeling which makes a perfect contrast for the sky. I could manage to do that in one photo. The rest was just timing to place the rain behind the lighthouse. Stephen, what happen to your monitor, was a wish of me from THYPHOON :) but, didn't happen...

I undersign this paragraph of yours. "I can understand that motivation, but I'd also add that there are ways to achieve a unique expression that doesn't involve composites or extensive processing. It does involve unique compositions (over which the photographer has control) and superb light (over which the photographer does not have control). It's a lot more difficult and usually takes a lot more time; it also involves some amount of good luck of being in the right place at the right time." I agree the whole paragraph. What you explain above is usual for many photographers. But for landscape photography where the light range can be very different, the dof area can be too deep, there are for me only two solutions. Using the filter or blending. I always prefer blending although it is more difficult afterwards to process. Because, the filter changes the quality of the photo. I prefer making the photo with minimum glass where you get optimum quality. Therefore, blending is the best way, not to manipulate but to present the scenery as natural as possible... I would also emphasize that there is huge difference between blending and HDR...

I hope, I could give some answers to your questions and and express my thoughts...