Moon

To my eye it doesn't look real.  Given the foreground, the moon is too large, and the amount of light on the moon relative to that on the foreground is way out of balance.  The light around and on the moon is not quite right.  Also, I wouldn't expect to be able to see a star that close to the moon when it's low in the sky (after all, the sun has just set).  Including the moon in a photo like this is perhaps one of the most challenging processing tasks around -- it's extremely difficult to do it in a manner that can leave a viewer wondering if it was manipulated.  However, some viewers won't care if it was manipulated, while others will.

Of course it doesn't look real Stephen. I never meant it to look real.

Jarek, this is why you need to state your intentions or your goal.  This is a landscape forum.  Most people do landscape photography.  A few do digital art photography that is passed off as landscape photography, and some to digital art photography as digital art photography (as you have done) but the subject just happens to have a landscape flavor.  When I look at this, how can I tell if it is digital art photography that is poorly done as a landscape photo, or digital art photography nicely done as digital art photography?  If you have no intentions of a posted photo looking like a real landscape photograph, you would help viewers if you would state that.

Stephen, I find your reaction rather odd, almost as though calling it a landscape photo somehow diminishes the genre. We have tags because an image will often fit into many categories, and I think where it fits most appropriately should be for the author to decide, and us to interpret.

This image is what it is, and speaks for itself - it's not a photo I would make but I find it actually pretty interesting and competently executed. 

Michael, calling it a landscape photo does diminish the genre for those who capture (rather than create) landscape photos.  Average people who view my photos at art fairs frequently ask, "Is it real?"  It's precisely because of unreal photos created by digital manipulation that they have to ask this question.  So it does diminish the genre.

PN does have a category for created photos; it's the "digital alterations" forum.

The photo does not speak for itself if I'm ever uncertain whether it was created or captured, and it doesn't speak for the photographer regarding his or her intentions; those have to be stated.  It speaks for itself only with regard to its artistic value and its meaning to the viewer.

As a created photo, I agree that it's pretty well done.  Blending the moon with the sky is particularly difficult, and Jarek has done a good job.  His use of "haze" has helped him in that regard.

The instant I saw this it's obvious a fake -- a composite of at least two photos.  Certainly the digital darkroom manipulation is of a very high caliber.

Like I said in another forum, this image is non terrestrial in origin -- a wonderful book cover for a sci-fi novel.

Maybe we need a new category "Contrived or Imaginary Landscapes" ?

We already have a category for this -- it's called "Digital Alterations," and there are some very creative, very imaginative, and sometimes thought-provoking images in there.

Stephen, respectfully, I don't think this image should be seen as diminishing the landscape genre any more than (run of the mill) traditional landscape images diminishing Ansel Adams' standing in the same genre.

Interestingly, similar arguments exists in the astrophotography community where purists will assert that anything which can't be seen by the aided eye is manipulated since it's impossible to see such things as nebulous clouds, yet it is colorfully portrayed in some of the most challenging astrophotos including those from NASA. Is it relevant or important? I suspect not from the perspective of viewers of these images, even with obviously faked composites.

Jarek never denied that this picture is manipulated and he doesn't have to - it's obvious. Maybe the crux of the issue is traditionalists feeling threatened by the increasing acceptance of Jarek's-type images as the norm (which in itself is an expected evolution of photography). If so, then perhaps the way to counter the trend is to create more distinctive traditional images to differentiate oneself from the others, and acknowledge that genre differentiation alone will not make or break its intrinsic merits.

Anyone who has seriously tried photographing the moon in an otherwise dark sky knows instantly that this is massively manipulated.  To get that degree of exposure of the ground, one would blow the moon completely out.  It is obvious that it is a composite.

The manipulation is so massive and so obvious that it seems an easy call that it should have been labeled as a digitally manipulated photo--if only to advise the unwary that such shots are not in any sense "natural" landscape photos.

In addition, a  moon that low is not going to look so bluish-white.

 It is precisely because so many otherwise good photographers and viewers would not see that it is manipulated that it needs to be labeled as such.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11183390

--Lannie

Lannie, I can't think of anyone who is likely to believe this to be real.

If there is any confusion, there are many interesting phenomena which are counter-intuitive that can render just about anything possible. Have a look at this daytime moon video - how many will realize that the sky can be still black under full daylight?

[

Another challenge: shoot a moonrise near the horizon with your digicam at prime focus through a 1200mm/F11 refractor and you'll get a picture that everyone will swear is a manipulated composite.

I'm not suggesting that all photos are equal, rather that it should be left to the viewer to decide impartially whether it appeals to them regardless of merit. 

Saying something isn't a landscape because one doesn't like the way in which it is produced is ridiculous.  Painting are called "landscapes" whether they are photo-realistic, pointillistic, or abstract.  We don't change the nature of the subject because of how they are done.

There is no relevant categorization that includes "digital alteration" and "landscape."  One is about the technique used and the other is about the subject.  The idea that something would be classified as one or the other of these two categories is a theatre of the absurd.

Too many people think that photography is about materials science and technique, and miss the point that photos might actually have something to say.  

Michael, earlier this evening I spoke with a very good photographer who said that she would not be able to tell.  I know how things look through long refractors, and so I am not easily fooled--which is not to say that I could never be fooled.  I was serious about astronomy long before I was about photography, and so I know what you mean about shots made near the horizon.  (One could say the same thing about shots made during the daytime, shots during which both earth and moon are quite brightly illuminated without either being blown out.  Shots made around dusk can also be totally "authentic" and interesting, but the exposures can get dicey--and timing can be critical.)  Stephen did have one of a crescent moon near the horizon that could fool a lot of people, but it is no longer posted.

In any case, as a courtesy to those who do not have the same background in astronomy, I would personally categorize such a shot as this as "digitally manipulated" to avoid giving persons the wrong impression--if I were posting it as mine.  I might thereby save some persons some time and some pain if they ever tried lunar photography themselves.

I am not suggesting that others are obligated to categorize their work the same way that I might in such problematic cases.

Jeff, yes, you are right, of course, that it is still a landscape.

--Lannie

Because of the context provided by the photographer I wouldn't worry about whether it's a "straight" photograph, composite or digital alteration.  It's in a folder titled Digital Landscapes and in that context, including the photographer's other comments, there doesn't appear to be any deception or sleight of camera.

It doesn't need to be realistic and obviously isn't.  From that perspective the only issue to me is whether it works within the intended context.  I'd say that in general it does work.  It's much more polished, both in technique and aesthetics, than some of this photographer's earlier work in the same genre and folder.  It contains no unnecessary or distracting frills (such as fake lens flare).  As far as I can see from a web sized JPEG, the composite work seems to be of a fairly high standard - I don't see any obvious artifacts indicating something was just pasted on.

The only nits I might pick would be some slightly blocky looking halos around and to the left of the moon.  Not sure whether that's an artifact of tone mapping or similar techniques, or just JPEG compression which tends to fight against subtle gradations.  And I'm not sure about the placement of the moon - it's very slightly off center and for some reason doesn't seem quite right.  Minor nits, tho'.  Overall it works as a fantasy or romanticized vision and would probably appeal to many viewers on that basis.

This is a very pleasant work and very attractive, the creation work went so good and so skilled which made me admire this image being a creative one and just a dead stationary photograph.

Yes it is landscape and it comes from a very creative person.

Thank you for sharing it and wishing you all of the best.