Composite Images

[Mongo]

There are strong opposing views at times about photo manipulation and “purity of photography”. Mongo’s view is that photography is not just a “recording method” for scientific knowledge. It is an art form where photographers can also “create”. As such it has considerable licence. It must be remembered that film photography was very much manipulated and that digital is no different (except that there are many more ways of going so easily). The only proviso Mongo puts on this is that, if the the manipulation goes beyond simple post processing and goes into the realm  of  real and substantive changes, e.g adding additional elements that were not there originally, then, it is perhaps appropriate to declare that. This is just a personal view but each to his own. Having said that, Mongo regularly removes the odd twig or leaf from wildlife images that would otherwise interfere with the image looking its best.

This post is not about the above philosophy, but Mongo mentioned it to show he is aware of the argument in the event controversy is raised. The real purpose was just to show some composite images.

In the landscape category, Mongo is very fascinated by skies and the effect they can have on an image. For that reason, whenever there are interesting skies, Mongo photographs them and keeps a separate library of them just for this purpose. Not sure if others do this or similar things.

When looking at these images, (except the one of the bridge and moons), imagine them with very bland skies and you will be seeing the original. Composites can be made up of additional elements being added OR by adding more of the original elements e.g. bridge and moons to hopefully achieve a better/different effect. Of course when “adding” a sky, you must make corresponding adjustments to the area below the sky to compensate e.g colour, reflections, size of reflection etc. Not always done well - but that is, after all, the challenge.

Additional disclosure:- in the last image (apart from the sky being added), some other trees were edited out to leave the "mother and child" trees only in the image.

If you have a view on this or images of this nature, please feel free to post them

[Tristin]

My opinion is that these are very nice images! ☺

I personally don't edit things out, and even avoid cropping, as I enjoy the challenge and subsequent satisfaction of doing things so, and/or the luck of an immaculate scene. When I do crop or edit things out, I usually feel my satisfaction hits a glass ceiling.  This is purely personal though, reflecting how much I value the process itself as much as the product, and doesn't reflect my feelings on other photographer's work.

[Mongo]

thank you Tristin. A very interesting point of view and good to know. It is also very reasonable and tolerant if Mongo may say so.

[Tristin]

I am very grateful that there are some many unique philosophies and personal angles behind everyone's works.  Were everyone were to be in line with my angle, or yours . . . what a bland world that would be to live in!

[Mongo]

I am very grateful that there are some many unique pholosphies and personal angles behind everyone's works.  Were everyone were to be in line with my angle, or yours . . . what bland world that would be to live in!

True ! thank goodness for the controversy created by differences (well, at least , some of the time) 

[John Geerts]

These are very interesting images, Mongo. I have more or less the same point of view as Tristin, but cropping is sometimes necessary in my case to deliver images in the desired format.  But I try to shoot to avoid that.  Post-processing is a different story.

[Mongo]

These are very interesting images, Mongo. I have more or less the same point of view as Tristin, but cropping is sometimes necessary in my case to deliver images in the desired format.  But I try to shoot to avoid that.  Post-processing is a different story.

thank you for your point of view also John. It seems more and more that there are "purist" photographers that like to shoot the final product in camera as much as is possible. This is not a bad thing at all. Indeed, no matter what you shoot, the aim is always to minimise the post processing or avoid it altogether. Of course , this is more obvious in photojournalism where you are trying to "report it as it is". In other cases, like putting together more abstract creative work, there would be a greater tendency to post process as much as needed to get that result. It seems to be horses for courses with no one at least,  violently against to others' view (and there are many views at different levels of conviction).

[Longhiker]

I like these. The things that I appreciate in others and strive for in my own attempts are: to make it interesting, have a point, and skillful execution. In my view, your photos are successful.

[Mongo]

I like these. The things that I appreciate in others and strive for in my own attempts are: to make it interesting, have a point, and skillful execution. In my view, your photos are successful.

thanks Bob - yet another point of view. You strive for three elements that would appear to be very desirable if not essential. Much appreciated.

[Almass]

The "another-world-AP" stands out for me.

I am very much a proponent of digital retouching and manipulation and it is one pet peeve of mine to the extent that I presented a paper on the subject.

Most if not all famous photographer manipulated their images, this includes HCB - Ansel Adams......etc.

We do not only use Photoshop but include 3d renders as well for even more fake reality and none is the wiser.

[Olivier]

I enjoyed these very much, Mongo. Your skills match your creativity and the output is thought provoking.
I have a small problem with the first one: the sky and reflection on the water don't match, at all... I can see it as a problem, or an invitation to check closer and think about what I am seeing, or even a source for a big headache...

Olivier

[Mongo]

Almass, thank you for your thoughts. It is true. Mongo wonders how many people actually know the countless hours and calculations A.Adams invested in manipulating every negative to print. Mongo has seen some of Adams' calculations and rough draft exposures for a single image and they are very extensive and probably represent a large percentage of time and effort spent to produce the final image. The works we all know and admire as Adams' work would not exist without this.

Olivier, thanks for looking in - always a pleasure to hear from you. You are correct about #1. It was one of Mongo's earliest images to have this treatment and now that Mongo looks at it, it should not have been included in this post as it does not meet the outcome Mongo was aiming for and talking about in this post. Knowing what he knows now and has learned over time, Mongo will go back and rework this image to try and get the right result. Again, Mongo's thanks  -  useful CC is always appreciated.

[Frank Fremerey]

A friend of mine works as graphic artist for the Ford company. This way I receive a lot of insight into real world car photography without being involved into the business myself. Cars do not interest me as sports (we mentioned that earlier).

The standard "car porn" picture as they call it is done by scanning (photographing in 180°x360°) some nice natural scene and creating / editing it into a 3D-environment.

Than the car is scanned/photographed and edited too, or -- as it is cheaper, faster and more versatile -- a 3D-model of the car is put into the environment, all light beams raytraced and afterwards some dirt is added so it looks more "realistic" or more "acceptable" to the consumer.

Another way is that the car is photographed with huge light setup outside on location and later the picture is edited from RAW in such a way that the photo is a mere input and the result is a 120% drawing over of the photo.

I do not say this is "good" or "bad", I only say this is not photography anymore.

***

Having sent this idea I come back to your photo edits with a question? What do you aim for? Do you want to tell a story about an idea you have on how the world should be, a fairy tale? Then in my book, it is very nice to edit away as much as you want. Fiction is allowed to do whatever it wants, tell whatever absurd or nice or dreamed up story.

But what about burgers? Is it OK to show a disgusting piece of barly edible junk as an adorable piece of fiction for the sake of a sale? Not for me, but your milage may vary.

Same goes for models photoshopped until they satisfy some male perverts ideal of beauty, with the effect that milions of girls compare their bodies to the photoshopped fairy tale and end up with eating disorder? I strictly disregard that practice, but your milage may vary too.

***

I add a Flickr link of a wonderful composite fairy tale photographer editor here as soon as I found it.

Superkitsch Madness: https://www.flickr.com/photos/galefraney/albums/1722568

and here is his homepage: http://www.thegraphicgroove.com/

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Photography is such a wonderful idea that it is able to encompass easily even the examples referred to by Frank.

Do keep in mind that photography is entirely and fundamentally different to the way humans observe their environment. We should focus (sic) on the outcome not the underlying process.

[Longhiker]

There are many paths to the goal. Value is added by the user or the viewer. Sometimes you choose one path, sometimes another. They can all serve the purpose, be well-executed, be appreciated.