g1

Just a short update - this image which was deleted so long ago, is still invisible on this url!

The deletion glitch that existed should surely have been rectified by now?

Don't the dead have rights? I mean, I'm not going to be around to care much when I'm dead, but I really don't fancy my corpse being photographed and put up for public view!<p>

 

I am actually more concerned about respecting the dead person, more than the feelings of innocent viewers.<p>

 

No disrespect for your point of view Laurie, just that I find it more unsettling that we could be photographed <i>dead</i>, when we most definitely would not look our best! I personally would rather be remembered as looking lively and happy!

Hi and thanks Mike. Yes I was actually hoping that would be the general consensus. Either printed by the person themselves or via the photographer through a lab, as Peter says <i>"even though I may print 1,000 copies on my own inkjet, or have Kodak print them for me via mail order, they are ALL originals."</i><p>

I was aware however, that 'original' used to mean a 1st generation print from the neg/tran so I was just wondering if we used the 'original' description for a digitally captured print, whether it would be a bit of a con because as Peter has said, there are limitless times you can print from a RAW or tif file. <p>

The reason I brought this up was because of a gallery owner who was interested in my work. She said she would be interested in an exhibition because my prints were 'high quality originals'. I didn't argue of course......... :)

Peter, I was wondering what print/photo sellers meant by attaching 'original photograph/print' in their sales description. As I thought, the meaning varies according to individual.

 

Thanks everybody for your feedback.

What is your definition for the description attached to photo and

print sales which state the picture as "an original print" or

"original photograph"?

 

I always thought this meant it was a print made directly from the

master film negative only (ie not from a reproduced copy), but I don't

see how the term applies when a picture is captured digitally.

I sympathise as I have been in the same predicament and lost work because I don't know what other quotes I am up against. To get around it I now say "x amount per hour plus expenses" so that any extras can be added later with them itemised in their invoice. It leaves more flexibility at the enquiry stage and if you do get commissioned you can discuss the extras and their prices when those specific requests are made by the client.

Bob, the methods of double exposure on film, and compositing two digital shots are not an ethical question for me [i use PS for many illustrative projects]. My reason for not wishing to use PS for this moon shot are a) because I already know how to achieve results with PS. I don't on the other hand, have much experience with double exposures on film [re the moon] or capturing the moon in one shot. The excercise then, is to push myself and to learn. And b) given the choice [i am doing it for myself], I would rather spend more time and effort with my cam in the field than on my PC at home. <p>

I would feel more proud capturing in-cam rather than with PS, because in PS I know I would be re-positioning the 'best' of the two moons, lifting shadows, and generally doing it the 'easy' way. If I were using a double exposure in-cam I would have to learn about capturing the shots so close together so as not to have two overlapping moons. I am not sure how the exposures would be managed in order to avoid that. But sadly, this isn't an option as I sold my two film cams. So, one-shot is what I would like to capture and I think advice about the moonrise/sunset times are critical, and responses here have been very helpful on that score. <p>

I agree about a wider aperture when the moon is on horizon rather than higher in the sky. When I tried my first horizon/landscape shot the moon was very orange and contrast was much lower compared to the brighter clearer moon when it had risen only half an hour later.

My response to Kelly and Bob's more recent input has been addressed and expressed very well by Jeff. Indeed, the question posted was not intended to cover astrophotography [which is a very specialised field and not where I was intending to venture]. The first sentence of my question was; <b>I would like to capture a picture of the moon rising from the horizon and set above a foreground landscape.</b><p>

 

Walangs comment; <b>Evangelical kooks who preach that "compositing is a satanic manipulation for which you will BURN IN HELL FOREVER" are free to proselytize</b> is imo way off topic and completely irrelevant, and I would like to clarify that nobody has preached anything! All posters in this thread who have attempted results in-cam have supported PS methods as an option, yet <i>prefer</i> to take the in-cam approach [multiple exposure or one-shot].<p>

Thanks to all posters for their interesting and informative contributions. It's been an education!

Thanks for showing us your pic Jeff - it's a great example of what can be done making use of artifical lighting. Also thanks for the detailed post on moonrise/sunset.

 

Jim, do I throw a pinch of salt over my left shoulder at the same time??

Mark, your picture captures more detail than I can achieve in the foreground. For example, I figure a good time to capture is when the sun goes down and the moon rises [22/06/05 - sunset 21.27 - moonrise 22.41] in UK, but I only achieve <a href="http://www.photo-art-gallery.com/images/wingreen-moon.jpg" target="_blank">this result</a>. Not as good as yours. Plus this link is a result of PS brightening of the foreground whilst suppressing the highlights [ie moon], so this is a <i>manipualted</i> image. I really would like to achieve it all in cam without manipulation. <p>Vivek, is the latitude of film able to do this?

Vivek, thanks. If I cannot achieve with digital I will revert to film.

Thank you Mark. So it is now possible! I am now looking at nothing to do with camera make/model, or the photoshop techniques!! The moon rises whilst the sun is still giving enough light to the landscape? So, what time of day and exposure settings are achieving the picture link you posted?

Thanks Lex, I'll take a look.... I never look there, being a Canon user.... :)

The whole point is that I want this picture, but I don't want to <i>fake it</i>. I love photoshop, have nothing against it, but I only pride myself in pictures captured <b>in cam</b>.

I would like to capture a picture of the moon rising from the horizon

and set above a foreground landscape. Having already experimented I

found that the moon moves very quickly [esp with the earth moving too]

so a surprisingly fast shutter was required to avoid motion trail.

Wishing to achieve maximum sharpness over such distances meant that a

small aperture would also be needed. So, with this combination it

seems to be impossible to get a shot with enough exposure for the

foreground, and even if you did the moon would then be over-exposed.

So, I then decided a double exposure would be the best option, but I

am using digital! Can anybody give me some suggestions to render a

satisfactory result? I had considered painting the foreground with

torch/flash light but a fast shutter wouldn't allow enough time.

Thanks Brian. I understand your reasoning, especially when explained in logical and practical terms. I also appreciate you actually acknowledging and addressing issues raised in forums and the time you spend sorting out abuse of the system. The name change topic was pretty well covered on a very long thread, at the time you froze the options. I was happy about your feedback in that thread, pleased with the decision you took, and how you implemented it.<p>

My responses in the posts above were admittedly an immature reaction on my part, to Mr Atkins who first suggested charging for editing, followed by the 'you guys' post. Repeated sarcastic and patronising replies in the forums from Mr Atkins are not imo a very good example to set from a moderator and representative of PN.

The <i>You guys</i> that "abused" the priviledge were in a tiny minority. <p>

This teacher/naughty kid mentality from the mods [read Gods] in the forums could also be 'erased' to improve the smooth running of the site. The term <i>"You guys"</i> illustrates the Lordy attitude well enough.

Charge for it? For a simple task we <i>used</i> to have an editable option for? You take away the priviledge of users doing it for themselves and then wish to charge for <i>your</i> choice of doing it for us? Oh yay... Hail God the Lord and Master.... I bow down in humility at your graciousness...

Thanks Leonard. I'm pleased to say I followed that a little easier. I appreciate your time and explanation!

 

Thanks also to Dave.

I am fine with either PC or Mac. My PC is faster than my Mac but as others have mentioned there are software and OS problems. Most of my probs with the PC have been IE related, which is without doubt a bad reflection on old Gates considering how many years it has been on the market. But, Macs are not so compatible and updatable when it comes to the huge market of 3rd party software packages, not to mention sending out end products on CD or DVD to clients. Although Macs currently have their own version of IE, Word, Excel, Photoshop etc, and there are converting software packages, I find there are still problems crossing platforms.<p>

My personal solution and preference was to use a fast Multimedia PC [with more than one firewall, Mozilla instead of IE etc <i>as Byron Lawrence advises</i>] as the main workstation and use a G4 Powerbook for Mac formatted files.<p>

The way I see it is that Mac cleverly cornered the market with schools & colleges which lead into the industries of media, graphics, photography, imaging & publishing. So, if you are working in any of those environments or industries you'll need a Mac to transfer all your data from home to work, vice versa and to send discs to clients. But Microsoft cornered the home market which spread into the offices and workplace. So, at the moment you need both to accomodate whatever, whoever, whenever.<p>

As to callibration, that's a another topic.... but no Mac or PC is the same as any other Mac or PC.... all computers should be individually callibrated in the Pro setting. I do get fed up of colour balancing and tweaking for viewing on the two different gammas, not to mention the finer balancing for printing or publishing.<p>

ps it is much easier to open PC files on a Mac than vice versa, so perhaps that may be an indication of the more capable model - or more accurately, superior structure OS?

ps The pixel dimensions straight out of my cam are 3072 x 2048.

Thanks for taking the time to explain Jeff. It sounds great but it all went over my head. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a maths dunce and even in your 'for dummies' version I still didn't get it. :( The reason I wanted to know the workings is because my camera format is 2:3, and for a competition I am entering, it asks for ratio 1:3 landscape or 2:1 portrait.

 

Thanks also to Klaus, I will have a look at the options in the crop tool dialogue.

Hi, can anybody explain in basic maths please, about how you work out

aspect ratios from the images dimensions? I understand what aspect

ratios are [ie the relative proportions of height & width] but I

cannot translate the 3:2, 1:3 etc to actual image sizes and vice

versa. Also, if anyone could tell me the simplest method of changing

the aspect ratio in PS I would be most grateful. Thanks in advance.

Nicholas, I am a fan of pinhole myself as a friend of mine manufactured a custom made pancake to fit my DSLR, so I certainly have no condescending intention, as I am sure others do not if they use the word 'toy'. We all know it's a just a well-used label, nothing more, nothing less. If 'alternative' saves users taking offense than that would be absolutely fine by me too.

That site does show the potential of grabbing interesting pics from mobile cams. Mobile phones are much more discreet and quicker to snap than a full on slr kit [which can be far too obvious and offputting for many potential subjects]. So it seems logical that there will be numerous opportunities for more successful and natural candid shots.

 

Re the proposed forum, I would vote for a 'toy' section and include the mobile snaps in there.