Darkness at Noon

[jambin]

I took this shot in the centre of Stockholm last week. Round about lunch time the elements went hay-wire: the sky blackened, the water blackened but every thing became intensely lit and coloured - weird. I did make it home before the thunder storm to beat all thunder storms broke.

[jjbacoomba]

very cool shot!

[epmi314]

I agree the colors are interesting. The boats almost look like they are huddled together in anticipation of the storm. The clouds look very similar to the storms that have been rolling through the midwestern US lately.

[arith]

remembrable

[ScoutR]

Very Nice!! I love the light before a storm and to my eye you have captured it perfectly here. Such great compostition too and how did you manage to get the seagull in just the right place at the right time.

Wendy

[Donald]

Jim

The light in that image is tremendous and, as Wendy has said, the seagull in that position really works.

But one question I have is whether that very dark strip of sky right at the top of the image is helpful? I wonder if it is too dominant and drags our eye unnecessarily to the top of the frame?

[FrankMi]

The intensity of the sky is fascinating! Nice capture, Jim!

[jambin]

Ok Wendy I'll come clean. The gull did just fly into the shot but it was not in a position which I felt enhanced the composition. At first I cloned it out completely but then, searching into the dark recesses of my ageing mind, rememberd that things could be moved in post processing and decided to move it a centimeter or two to the right. I feel like a real cheat. What are the ethical rules governing this sort of thing?

[Dizzy]

Ok Wendy I'll come clean. The gull did just fly into the shot but it was not in a position which I felt enhanced the composition. At first I cloned it out completely but then, searching into the dark recesses of my ageing mind, rememberd that things could be moved in post processing and decided to move it a centimeter or two to the right. I feel like a real cheat. What are the ethical rules governing this sort of thing?

Saw this earlier, and loved the contrast on the boats in the marina.

Not sure there are "ethical rules", but if it was part of the original image and you simply relocated it to a more convenient spot, well...that seems quite reasonable to me. It is certainly no more a foul than cloning out undesired elements, which is done on a very regular basis.

[Sahil]

Ok Wendy I'll come clean. The gull did just fly into the shot but it was not in a position which I felt enhanced the composition. At first I cloned it out completely but then, searching into the dark recesses of my ageing mind, rememberd that things could be moved in post processing and decided to move it a centimeter or two to the right. I feel like a real cheat. What are the ethical rules governing this sort of thing?

SSShhhhhh, just keep it to yourself
Well, as Mike said, even I don't think li'l relocating make much of a difference. Adding a new sea-gull altogether would have been a different issue, but if it did come into the scene, then relocating doesn't look like a problem.

& this is a great shot. This is may be the first shot that I have seen which leads my eyes form background to foreground (or may be I have gone crazy )

[jambin]

Oh that dark cloud. As always Donald your keen eye spots things I wouldn't even have thought about. You are, of course, quite correct, the cloud does draw attention to itself. On the other hand I had the feeling that the black cloud was an integral part of the meteorological phenomonon the image is trying to illustrate and that If I cropped it out and just left big white fluffy clouds the other elements - dark water, intense light and colour wouldn't make any sense. So I cropped it out as you suggested and it looks fine -damn it. Here comes the last defence of a man to be hanged. On the other hand if the viewer was unfamiliar with the polarisation effects that the collision of pockets of high and low pressure have on light (don't pretend you've ever experienced high pressure in Scotland) he would be at a loss to to explain the intensity of light and colour. Cheers

[KeithH]

A fabulous shot and I've read the comments with interest but for me the dark strip has to stay because, as you say Jim, it adds authenticity to the black water for the unititiated - me!

[jambin]

Thanks Scoot. I glad we don't get your ping-pong ball sized hailstones

[jambin]

Dizzy, you should not condone my bad behaiour. I promise never to do it again.

[FrankMi]

Dizzy, you should not condone my bad behaiour. I promise never to do it again.

Hi Jim, I met a photographer that had been around for many years. If he so much as modified the exposure in the darkroom from what he believed it to be in the original, he would say that the image had been ‘adjusted’. I don't know if this was his way of saying that the image didn't match the original scene or if he felt that by saying so, that nobody would condemn the changes he made.

If you do portraits and do not retouch the image the customers can be angry for cheating them. At the other extreme you see images of jockeys riding hummingbirds and hands with eleven thumbs. Opinions of what changes are reasonable vary all over the place. Some folks feel that even using the lens blur on a background in Photoshop is a cheat but have no problem with sharpening the image. Go figure! You'll need to decide for yourself what level of adjustments are acceptable to you and what you where you want to shout out 'I changed this in this way'.

In the case of this photo, I feel it is a natural position for the seagull to be in and, having seen really dark clouds preceding a storm like this, I am comfortable, indeed, very pleased with the way it looks.

[ScoutR]

Ok Wendy I'll come clean. The gull did just fly into the shot but it was not in a position which I felt enhanced the composition. At first I cloned it out completely but then, searching into the dark recesses of my ageing mind, remembered that things could be moved in post processing and decided to move it a centimeter or two to the right. I feel like a real cheat. What are the ethical rules governing this sort of thing?

From a photographic point of view, I don't think it has anything to do with ethics. It is your image and whatever you can do to make it better is your choice.

Now on the other hand if I posted this picture in a news column with the headline. "Seagull Races Out of Harbour to Avoid Approaching Storm" and then went on in the story to show how the photo illustrated the intelligence of Seagulls - Well that's unethical

OR if you entered a contest where everyone had to photograph the same area and then you come up with perfectly placed seagull well that wouldn't be very honest, but if you are making a photograph for people to view and enjoy, then I don't think there is anything at all wrong with using all the tools available. I guess the only rule is to do a good job of it, and you passed with flying colours on that.

Wendy

[TobyMac]

Awesome shot