This is the Way It was

You seem to be rather angry?

 

Well I hope you don't get more upset by my response to your demand for an appology, but

I think that you must be a very naive photographer if you think that the only way to

manipulate a photographic image is with a computer program!

 

Photographers have been manipulating light to make an image different from what is seen

by the naked eye since Mr Fox Talbot invented the Negative technique. Photography, by its

very imperfect nature manipulates. No photographic film, or light sensitive cell "sees" the

world in the same way as the eye does. Different photographic film, or digital camera

settings are different, because they capture light very differently, giving the photographer

a choise on how he/she wants to represent a scene. Long or short exposures; large or

small appertures; various filters; the choice of light, and the angle of the lens in

relationship to this light all allow the photographer to manipulate the image, and I won't

even discuss processing and printing! Your attitude is characteristic of the lazy computer

generations notion of photography "just get the scene as a half decent jpeg, and let the

computer do the rest!" - as I said, this is most naive!

 

My Breazeale has indeed manipulated this image, as sunrises and sunsets just do not

appear like this in nature! - He just didn't do it by fiddling arround with various filters and

channels in photoshop. He does admit to some degree of digital manipulation, and

photo.net does not speak for me in defining my notion of what constitutes a manipulated

image. However most of the "manipulation" of this image does appear to have been done

with the camera, by the choise of film, and in the processing and printing or scanning

stages. It is still manipulated, it just suggests that Mr Breazeale is an accomplished and

skilled photographer of the old school, who does not need to resort to the lightroom for

these "effects".

 

With respect, Nick.

"My Breazeale has indeed manipulated this image, as sunrises and sunsets just do not appear like this in nature!" Nicholas Price

 

Sorry to inform you Mr. Nick, but you is quite wrong! In fact that's what makes your comments (in my mind) rather insignificant altogether now. Obviously YOU have never witnessed a sunset like this in YOUR lifetime, so according to your foolish-sounding argument above, they must never really happen then. How reasonable is that? Okay, sure...

 

In fact take a look at this persons folder: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2030009

 

I see quite a few there, and have seen a few in my own lifetime.

 

"However most of the "manipulation" of this image does appear to have been done with the camera, by the choise of film, and in the processing and printing or scanning stages." (Another good one from Nick

 

This above does not even make sense Nick, sorry. "Process in printing"?? Choice of camera?? Scanning??... all have to do with the manipulation of this image? Perhaps in your great wisdom, you could elaborate once again. Velvia slide film can intensify colors more than other films, but Mr Nick, it does not invent them, they have to be there first. The reds, yellows or whatever else were there, as Thomas has clearly stated. Furthermore as I mentioned in my first comment, it is the exploding rays of the sun that truly make this image dramatic from my point of view. Please tell us then, how were those manipulated. And please, I can't wait to hear how the "print process" had an effect on this little j-peg too.

 

"Your attitude is characteristic of the lazy computer generations notion of photography "just get the scene as a half decent jpeg, and let the computer do the rest!" - as I said, this is most naive! (More from NIck

 

And you base this superfine quote and another unfounded accusation on what?? It sounds to me you like to do quite a bit of typing without the needed preliminaries... mostly thinking. It's just plain foolish to say such a thing like that here.

 

 

 

 

"Well I hope you don't get more upset by my response to your demand for an appology". Nick-again

 

Perhaps reading what's actually written IS the problem... once again. I never demanded anything. Here, I'll post it for you again:

 

"Perhaps you could elaborate (your accusation that this is obviously manipulated)... or maybe apologize." VKT

 

It's rather simple to see what happened here: Although Thomas has stated that this was NOT manipulated, the colors were real, (did not add any in Photoshop), you accused Thomas of manipulating the image anyway saying: "This is terribly over-egged! Exactly the kind of manipulation which gives sunsets a bad name!" In effect in my mind telling us you think Thomas is lying. That's how I interpreted what you said. I then replied asking to to elaborate on this acusation OR to apologize. In return we get this garbled explanation above how the camera, film, scanning and printing were used to manipulate this image, as well as another accusation that we all just want to take average j-peg images and let the computer do the rest. Sorry if I don't sound conviced Nick...

 

Yes Thomas, a discussion on God would be most enjoyable. I don't think Vuk would really fare to well though. Just my opinon. However, the reason my comments to good ole Vuk have been short and sweet is because we know who moderates this here forum. Hi Mary. Aloha.

Some people will always be deaf.

....and angry!

 

This is a discussion forum, and not a place for silly arguements. People must accept that

there are many different opinions, there always will be.

 

My dialogue on the above matter ends here.

 

Nick.

I met Tom in the Philippines about 4 years ago, and he showed me the original 6x6 cm

transparency of this sunset. It's real. This is the most spectacular sunset I've ever seen

photographed. I told Tom at the time that I hated him because he got this awesome shot

and I didn't!

Thanks for stopping by and much appreciated!Your input at least lends some credibility to this image...sometimes it is difficult to be 'just a voice in the wilderness'.Out of professional courtesy to Jim I have provided a link to another image of mine that he was instrumental in setting up.His version was chosen for a Mamiya advertisement while mine rots in eternity ha,ha!Thanks again Jim...

EXCELLENT JOB!

Jim has an outstanding website of images. Great variety too. Thanks for the photographic tour and tips. Consider yourself bookmarked! Aloha.

This is the best lighting situation in any sunset photograph I have ever seen. When I first saw this shot, I stared at it in awe for several minutes. Having just seen the brighter version, I think I actually prefer it a little brighter. What a fantastic photo.

Such a captivating scene. Pure Heaven. A7 - O7

Truly amazing scene. Congrats on such a great capture!

This photo is great, leave it alone people...."well if you could've had a 2-stop split ND blah, blah, blah...." Did it ever occur to anyone that sometimes the best photos are the ones that aren't technically perfect? Also, it's great to know how to achieve that "perfection" if you want it, but you may just lose something in the process. Yeah, know the rules...also know when to break them! There's also time constraints as well, I thought and according to Thomas this light was very fleeting. Well done 7/7!

Wet: Wonderful, Excellent, Top of your photos!

 

See my pages to compare:

http://faragolaszlo.honlapom.com/ *** http://photo.net/photos/Laszlo_Farago