-= 6D Owners Unite! Discuss and post Photos!

^Regardless of how it was created, I loved the shot! This one is great too

I totally got what you were going for and I think you nailed it, so keep up the great work!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17033593
Except that in this case it is realistic... my understanding is that he took a shot of the moon with his 70-200mm, then from the same location took a shot with his 16-35mm and combined them in post to keep the details of the super moon... in my mind that is far from cheating. Where I am the moon looked about that big, so I don't see that as cheating at all, it's recreating the scene as he envisioned it, which is what art is imo...

different trains of thought in what is considered cheating or not.

At one time, I had considered creating a thread regarding the subject, but didnt want to open a can of worms.... the can is now open.

In some photo contests, you can be disqualified for such manipulation:
http://www.alexnail.co​m/blog/news-updates/lpoty-2012/
http://www.digitalcame​raworld.com …2012-winner-disqualified/

Of course POTN is not a photo contest, but their plenty of folks that are not in favor of such heavy manipulations (there's a poll in the second link).

In favor of removing distracting objects from a scene, but adding a subject is a different ballgame.

I am going to give my take, in this case, I don't think that by superimposing the same moon, taken from the same vantage point in the same location is adding a subject to the image.
If the image had a moon shot taken from another image taken elsewhere, or even when a moon was not present, it would be more of an issue. But based on the shot in question, it would appear he was using only a better representation of the moon on that particular evening. He did not insinuate that the shot was real or fake for that matter. And all of a sudden we get into a soap box discussion about real or fake. Photography is an art form. The shot was beautiful regardless of how it was accomplished.
A wall hanger as some would say. But if you don't like it because you don't like fakes, great, don't diminish the work that was the end result, which is a beautifully crafted shot of a moon over a body of water that was stunning.
Just live and let live in my book. Sure say something like you prefer non edited shots, but I can't imagine anyone that shoots RAW not doing some form of editing to their images. Is that any more or less real? I guess I just don't get it.
We create art with out photos. Whether it looks real or fake is in the eye of the person viewing it, but such hard line opinions about it is fake so I hate it, it just a bit much. IMHO of course.

sirquack wrote in post #17034004
I am going to give my take, in this case, I don't think that by superimposing the same moon, taken from the same vantage point in the same location is adding a subject to the image.
If the image had a moon shot taken from another image taken elsewhere, or even when a moon was not present, it would be more of an issue.

Well on the flip side, why does the location of where I took the shot of the moon matter?

the moon will look the same regardless of where I shoot it from. So if I put it in an image where it makes the image look as dramatic as possible, why would it matter? or does it matter?

Charlie wrote in post #17034041
Well on the flip side, why does the location of where I took the shot of the moon matter?

the moon will look the same regardless of where I shoot it from. So if I put it in an image where it makes the image look as dramatic as possible, why would it matter? or does it matter?

He took the picture of the moon as he saw it that night and then put it on his image to do justice to the scene that he witnessed. He said he enlarged it slightly, but I think it looks fairly natural to the scene anyway.

In the example you posted above the only part of that image which would bother me is that he basically ripped off another photographer and then tried to win a contest with it. Yeah it was a bit different, but he stole the subject and composition entirely, to me that's absolutely cheating. Cloning out some things I think is fine, adding things is even fine if it's from the same scene, what that guy added wasn't though and thus I'd say is a little bit of a cheat. Even still, if it's to create a beautiful image, who cares if it's "cheating"?

Photoshop is available to everyone, if you think it's cheating, learn to use it and level the playing field I personally just don't care enough to learn how to do all that stuff on photoshop, it doesn't interest me, but it certainly doesn't bother me when other people are good at it either.

Charlie wrote in post #17032148
well that's an odd lens, didnt even know it existed. You can pickup the samyang 14 for pretty cheap as well, around ~200 or so second hand. Pretty damn capable:]

Yeah, it is really worth looking into, I researched a lot before looking for a while to find one come up. I got it for interiors as it is way better than the samyang regarding distortion control, and AF is not as unwelcome as I thought with wide open shots at close range. The samyang is sharp for sure, but I wanted a more all around 14 that was not $2000 and so far so good.

This is a 6D Owners Unite thread. Be the bigger person and self moderate yourself here - resist the urge to criticize images (there is a section of the forum for that) and debate the rights and wrongs of photography (this debate will never end).

Thanks!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17033573
Get off your high horse. If you don't want to create composites than it's your business, but don't belittle anyone else's work for it, history will be the judge of who's got the more powerful image and to my eyes that composite is one of the best I've seen on this site in a good while..

Sorry, didn't know we were not allowed to provide our opinion, the photographer himself took my feedback as well as all others.

But just for you ... yes, great picture! move on.

Sage wrote in post #17034746
Sorry, didn't know we were not allowed to provide our opinion, the photographer himself took my feedback as well as all others.

But just for you ... yes, great picture! move on.

Out of curiosity, are you a Ken Rockwell fan?

Hmmmmmm, no I'm not going to fix things either as I do feel that everyone who has posted is correct, and there have been times when I have wondered myself, with considerable cogitation I came to this conclusion... photograph comes out of a camera, when stuff from another photograph, picture or software effects (ie pencil shading etc) is added, it then becomes a picture.

If one goes back and reads the first post it does say

It does not say 'pictures coming out of Photoshop, DXO etc.'

So in fact, everyone is correct and yep, I also thought it was a great picture.

Back to 6D photos please....

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ognA​Gk

Friends from the ocean

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/om2J​aP

NZ Common Dolphins

6D, 135 f/2 with 2xiii telecon, processed with NIK silverfx

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/om15​nd