Gone to the Dark Side

[tbob]

I posted this image to a site a friend directed me to where photographers submit images for artists to use.

I got one comment asking if the image had been processed or was "natural" I told the poster that all my images are processed, a necessity for digital photography. I told her this was enhanced and I used artistic license to depict the aurora as it should be, not actually was, so no it was not natural. And in fact it was changed to make it more exaggerated as a study for someone to paint the aurora. Her response, which I am paraphrasing, was that it was unfortunate I did not supply what the northern lights are actually like. A valid point, but however I was a little surprised to have it from a painter.

I have now officially moved into unnatural processing. There may be no way back.

[jcuknz]

Nice one, I am always asleep if it happens around here but I was struck by the stars making look like you had copied a dusty photo

Edit I see Dawson Creek is ten degrees further north than Dunedin is south so that also is another explanation why I sleep

[Shadowman]

I've had strange comments as well, it mattered to one viewer the time of day the image was captured as he didn't expect a red sky in the morning, he felt it had to of been captured at dusk. By the way, nicely captured image.

[tbob]

Nice one, I am always asleep if it happens around here but I was struck by the stars making look like you had copied a dusty photo

Edit I see Dawson Creek is ten degrees further north than Dunedin is south so that also is another explanation why I sleep

The night this was taken I checked the aurora forecast It just barely touched the south end of the South Island at maximal. Quite a strong display, 7/9, so it must be rare for you to see the aurora.

[Donald]

Her response, which I am paraphrasing, was that it was unfortunate I did not supply what the northern lights are actually like. A valid point, but however I was a little surprised to have it from a painter.

Fascinating. Perhaps she'd like to send you a sample of her work so that you could check whether she meets her own criteria in what she does.

[tbob]

I've had strange comments as well, it mattered to one viewer the time of day the image was captured as he didn't expect a red sky in the morning, he felt it had to of been captured at dusk. By the way, nicely captured image.

Red sky at morning, photogs take warning.

As I told my wife, Pablo Picasso would have a bit of a problem if this natural representation criterion applied to painters. Let alone Jackson Pollock.

[tbob]

Fascinating. Perhaps she'd like to send you a sample of her work so that you could check whether she meets her own criteria in what she does.

I have seen some of her stuff. Mainly landscapes and still life done in water colours. Looks natural , the way I see the world in my natural state; sans eyeglasses.

[Shadowman]

Red sky at morning, photogs take warning.

As I told my wife, Pablo Picasso would have a bit of a problem if this natural representation criterion applied to painters. Let alone Jackson Pollock.

I typically have to underexpose the shot to get the fiery reds of sunrises/sunsets and that usually means my foreground is pitch black which typically isn't the case as viewed. I wonder if the artist has an issue with photographers using filters to achieve the "as seen with the naked eye" captures?

[pnodrog]

..............Her response, which I am paraphrasing, was that it was unfortunate I did not supply what the northern lights are actually like. A valid point, but however I was a little surprised to have it from a painter.

I have now officially moved into unnatural processing. There may be no way back.

You could suggest she sets up her easel and paints from real life. That should cool her down a bit and test how authentic her images need to be. How good are oils and acrylics at sub zero temperatures?

Of course if you want to retract from the dark side you could adjust the in camera picture control settings and claim they are unmodified JPEG images straight out of the camera.

[DanK]

if the image had been processed or was "natural"

which shows a complete misunderstanding of digital photography, since every digital image ever viewed by anyone has been processed. I hear this all the time--e.g., people thinking that SOOC means 'unprocessed' and therefore somehow more virtuous.

Some people prefer to process in a way that is more natural, and others prefer to deviate more. So what's new? That's been true in the art world for a very long time. Does she disparage all impressionists, for example? If the questioner wants to rule out any image that doesn't strive to be maximally realistic, she would leave most art museums largely empty.

I really like your images, by the way.

[IzzieK]

As I was about to say, no matter what anyone had said or she said, I like your images, this one included. Period.

[bnnrcn]

Great image Trevor and I like your processing

[Adzman808]

She must hate B&W photography then

As noted above, all images are processed, even jpeg shooters usually get a choice of jpeg profile!