Night Sentinel

Very different image from crater Lake. I really like the composition. This was well seen, thought through and executed.

This is very beautiful. I have an interest in doing similar images. At what point does something like adding stars and fixing the moon become photo art?

Stunning shot Alex with many delicious elements.

Brad, that's entirely up to you. I see no issue with enlarging the moon, since it appears even larger than this to the human eye. Just because my composition requires a wide angle to encompass it, doesn't mean I should be penalized on moon detail. Additionally, overlaying the stars is just because they don't show up well in-camera at the point of the evening when you can see both light on the landscape and the stars starting to appear in the sky. The idea behind it is just to capture the feeling of the twilight hour, which is markedly different than night and than sunset.

Even putting all that aside, does it matter? In my opinion, no. I don't answer to any photography police. I think it all comes down to taste. I'm not going to throw some super-sized moon from a 500mm exposure over a wide-angle sunset. I believe what I do are faithful artistic interpretations of the scenes. Whether someone wants to call it "photo art" or "photography" doesn't matter to me. (Although all the fundamentals and principles of photography still apply in what I do, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be the latter.)

Alex
The star blend feels to me like it is fighting with the golden tones coming form the rim at sunset. Kind of like fire coming out of ice. Just my opinion.
G

Gary, the warm/cool contrast is 100% intentional. Blue/yellow and purple/orange don't "fight" in my opinion, as they're scientifically complementary colors. You can pull reds, yellows, oranges, and magentas out of clouds in the middle of the night from a setting or rising moon. White balance is all relative - this was an exposure taken at twilight when I could see stars overhead, not sunset. The warmth on the right was emphasized, as that's the light source - but those colors weren't painted in, they were there at twilight. The colors are all from one exposure, the stars are merely overlaid. And it's rare, but I have definitely seen stars when sunset-ish colors were lingering in the sky - it can happen if conditions are right. Yeah, it's a bit surreal looking, and no one has to like it - but I just don't want anyone thinking it's throwing stars on a sunset shot, or that any aspect of the style is unintentional or haphazardly thrown together.

Alex,

Stunning.

Slaying it man...you're on a roll.

aF

This is gorgeous Alex! Excellent composition and perfect exposure. Nice job on the blend too.

I have been enjoying your images from Crater Lake. The softly illuminated tree works great here. I found the location to be difficult, but I only had one day.
May I add my two cents to the discussion, to provide a different perspective. I see the motivation to apply some techniques to bring an image close to what can be seen with the dynamic range of the eyes and brain of a human. Exposure blending is a good example. And I do this too. Well, if we want it or not, photography to many people means that a "single" moment is shown in the photograph (if we label it as such). If two or more moments are shown in one image, and in particular, if the moments occurred minutes or even hours apart, then we push the envelope of "photography" quite a bit. Ok, that is a matter of definition, but for me the definition needs to account for what commonly is considered photography and what people associate with a photograph - i.e a fleeting moment captured. It is very simple: If the final composition requires to add things up that never existed in parallel, but occured in series, and if we call it a photograph, then it becomes a touchy issue. I am not judging the techical approach of "compositing", but the (perhaps) misinformation of the viewer (client?). Personally, I would be dissapointed to learn "after" having visited a (nature) photographers gallery, that the works are composites. If I know it while viewing, it is a totally different affair. You fully disclosed everything and I can see that the time-compression does not necessarily apply because I see that the scene could look like that in *one* moment, given the dynamic range can resolve it.

I hope this is not considered as "lecture" but as food for thought.

You are really killing it with these scenes. Really really like this. Can't say I have any nits or suggestions.

Spectacular and original. I love it, Alex.

As for the discussions on whether this is a photograph or "photo art", I think the lines are blurred and more importantly, meaningless. This is not a gallery that sets out to be documentary either as a travelogue of places or as a demonstration of the capabilities/limitations of camera gear. This gallery is about demonstrating our artistic vision of natural landscapes as photographers. We each follow our own path on this, and what sadly most people don't realize are 2 things: it's very hard to produce an artistically appealing image with the limitations of the natural world and our ability to capture it with gear. We're not unfettered in the way painters are for example. Second, photographs don't have to be (and are not!) only for documentation purposes. Look how hard Jerry Uelsmann had to fight the artist and photographer community for acceptance. Now he's revered!

Dietrich, I find that clients are more often impressed with the techniques required for a composite than they are turned off by it. Indeed, I find what you describe to be mainly an issue of semantics. For example, I have a Grand Canyon image which required extensive blending and massaging of three bracketed exposures taken right after each other, one of which even had my finger in the frame to block flare from the sun. Then we can look at this Crater Lake image by comparison. This one is FAR closer to the RAW than the GC image is to any of its RAWs, yet by the definition of some, it would be the less "legitimate" image due to the stars. The real question is: does it matter? No, because the GC image has sold well, and so have my twilight images. My only goal is to be able to make a living doing what I love, which is making the images I personally want to make.

Whether they're technically composites or not, they would be the EXACT same images, without white dots in the sky, if I only used a single frame. I could have stretched the moon out from the original exposure instead of taking one with a longer focal length too. One of my motivations for these twilight images, as opposed to traditional night images, is the static stars. If I shoot under low moonlight (the only other time there is good light on the landscape and stars visible, aside from aurora), I need a 10+ minute exposure if I want the landscape to look good at a low ISO. Then I get star trails, which can be nice for a more surreal scene, but I really want to capture the feeling of looking up and seeing static stars in the sky in most instances. So.. if I care at all about quality (shooting at a low ISO), I'm stuck blending exposures - one 30 second one at ISO 1600 for the sky, and one 10 minute one at ISO 200 for the landscape. Is this closer to a "photograph" than the twilight/stars method? Or should I just handhold an ISO 6400 exposure, in the interest of capturing a "fleeting moment"?

I hope I don't seem defensive here, I'm just discussing and giving my opinion on it. To me, the gray area is so wide and could encompass so many situations, that I don't bother limiting myself on the basis of semantics or what some people might think. A majority of my images are still single exposures, not even bracketed, and definitely not composited. Those don't feel any more legitimate or rewarding to have made, for me. As far as my goal of making a living doing what I love, I don't believe "compositing" or blending of exposures will ever hinder me, if I continue to do it in good taste. Look at Marc Adamus, or Michael Fatali - two very different artists that have used compositing to create some of their best images. It hasn't stopped them from being wildly successful in this field. I just use whatever technique will best allow me to make a technically sound, atmospheric image that hopefully elicits the same emotion I felt at the scene. And I'll call it photography when I do it, because I'm taking a camera, mounting it on a tripod, choosing a lens and focal length, determining the appropriate aperture and shutter speed, and using a cable release to open a shutter and expose my light-sensitive material to the scene in front of me and form images.

Kartik, you're right - I'm not a photojournalist! I never purport to present a 100% unaltered image. That's not even getting into the fact that all photography distorts reality, just through the basics, such as: inclusion/exclusion of elements, perspective, field of view, over/under-exposure, and longer shutter speeds. It's all about taste and where you draw the line. Uelsmann, who you mention, drew his line much further out than I do - and *gasp* on film, supposedly the holy grail of purity and legitimacy in photography.

Alex, I was asking about the "photo art" more from the standpoint of the NPN forum's rules than an ethical standpoint. My first post was moved from "landscape" to "man and nature" due to a fence. I don't have a problem with that. It just made me wonder about when an image is considered not a photograph anymore and should be in the other gallery? I guess there are as many standards ethically as there are people.

I like shooting at twilight as well and there are often stars visible at that time. Fixing the moon seems fair to me. I have some shots I wish I could do that to.

Let me reiterate that I love the picture and admire your work.

Oh, I didn't take any offense to it, Brad. I just like to give my opinion on the subject whenever I have the chance, and I have a tendency to rant when I do so. I see what you mean about putting it in a different forum, but I feel like Landscape gets the best traffic, and 99% of my images would fit into "landscape" by my definition, so I'll post them here. The moderators can move them if they want, but I think it'd be a little ridiculous to move this for the white dots in the sky, when the "photo art" gallery has some really obviously unrealistic and out-there composites and effects in it (not that there's anything wrong with those - they're just a different thing in my mind, since I strive for an end result that is interpreted realistically as a photograph.)

A nice surrealistic portrayal of this location. The touch of warmth on the right side is a beautiful inclusion in the composition.

Well done, Alex.

Alex, thanks a lot for your detailed response. I really appreciate it! Something I would like to see more often here (or in the discussion forum). All what you said makes sense and it does not sound defensive.
What I have described in my other post is where I have drawn my own line (so far). It is my definition I use when doing photoshop so I can live up to my own ethics or morals. This is not an absolute reference of course, but I was looking for a guideline because I have observed that we (digi) photographers are often not happy how the public perceives the use of photoshop. And I think, some of this scepticism is perfectly valid and our own fault, and it is not due to the lack of insight on photoshop (and dark room) techniques on the viewers side. Because I know what is being done to arrive at the final image and I know that not everything of it is disclosed. I tried contemplating on what people commonly associate with a "photograph" and how it was made . I tried to understand what they would accept in terms of "manipulation" and what they would not approve. I found it boils down to that "one moment in time" thing. However, I did not do any research on that, like doing interviews with potential clients.(I am not a pro anyway). Like you said, many of your clients, when they learn about a technique are impressed, not dissapointed, so I bet I *should* have been doing interviews...

This is really well done. I enjoy the look, feel and mood of this very much. Nice work Alex.

Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI

Almost everything we do with blending can be done in camera...the star shots you could take a 10min exposure for the landscape and use a piece of cardboard to block the sky....then reveal it for 30s or w/e at the end. Stuff like that. Technology lets us really explore our creativity. As long as we are being honest to ourselves and collectors art is art :)

xo
aF

A wonderful capture of Crater Lake with an excellent FG. The color and lighting are superb.

A very creative interpretation of Crater Lake at twilight. It is a magical time of day, when "daylight" blends into "night time" in a process of transfiguration. Meaning that it is awe-inspiring and requires watching over a period of some time. Alex, I think you have masterfully provided your audience a clear window to this process in an inspiring way. Marvelous photography. Your process of creating this image mirrors the way nature presents the phenomenon. A triptych would portray this in sequence, which is the way it "happens," but our minds create the experience of twilight as portrayed here. I love it. Kudos, Alex!

Wow, Alex, stunning work. I agree with Dietrich's comment on the whole photo art debate and find this image completely appropriate in this gallery.