Nature versus nuture

[tbob]

I am curious to get opinions on the validity of this sort of thing. I do not want to start an argument, just want opinions on whether people on the site regard the second image as "Landscape" (real) or some artificial derivative.

This is as shot



highly processed

[Donald]

The second image is your interpretation of the scene you as you saw it.

It's a little known secret, but Leonardo probably did not have the Mona Lisa sitting against that background. He applied artistic interpretation. That's what we do as artists using photography as our medium.

You can be a snapshooter or a creator of images.

Whether the general public like your interpretation is another matter altogether.

[John 2]

I suppose the purist would ask what was the subject of the image. My view is who cares. It's a great capture. My only thought would be to tone down the white area behind the trees on the right.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I like my photos to reflect 'real' as much as possible, right out of the camera.
This being said, which do you think represents the scene best at the time it was taken?
I would agree with John, who cares what I think?
I wouldn't want the second image to be represented to me as 'real' if in fact it really isn't.

[JemC]

They are both very good and acceptable images,
I personally prefer #1 as it's a little more pleasing on the eye,

Regards

[NorthernFocus]

Trevor, I think you picked a poor example for discussion of the general topic. Virtually ANY image shot with long ss is something the human eye does not see. That said the second image is a more accurate rendering IMO of what aurora look like in real time.

[mugge]

I fool around with 'artificial derivatives' many times in PP. Sometimes it works sometimes it does not. It is fun it is creative. Sometimes you may end up with a great photo.
Cheers Ole

[bje07]

Everyone has his own perception of colors, sharpness. Cameras recorded lights and interpret (in JPEG) or deliver dull RAW you have to PP.
I prefer # 2 as I like punchy colors, but it's my interpretation

[JBW]

I have spent a lot of time lately trying to find ways to create an acceptable spider shot. Someone wants to shoot SOOC they get no grief from me. However, for now, I like to work for my best both in-camera and by tweaking

[Dave Humphries]

Second for me too Trevor,

As Dan and Donald cover, this is what you 'saw'.

e.g.
The aircraft light trail was not seen as a line, it would have been a moving dot, so it is valid to remove the line from the image.
Same goes for what looks to be car headlights.
You would have been intensely aware of the colours in the sky, so boosting those is fair game for me, but Dan's personal experience confirms this (alas I've never seen them with my own eyes)

Is it a Landscape?
Well, I'd call it a 'skyscape', but we said we would argue about that

It is valid though.

Dave

[IzzieK]

Trevor, I think you picked a poor example for discussion of the general topic. Virtually ANY image shot with long ss is something the human eye does not see. That said the second image is a more accurate rendering IMO of what aurora look like in real time.

Who better to comment on photographs like this but those who live at both ends of the world, eh? My thoughts doesn't matter either, but I like pleasing to the eyes shots.

In response to Dave, give this another thought -- the shot was taken on land, so it is called a landscape; taken of the sky, then we call it a "skyscape" taken on landscape. Follow? -- to sum it up, both has its own merits. Just my thought, and sometimes inversely unpopular opinion, one is rarely thought to be a good photographer without boosting your shots one way or the other -- and Photoshop, Inc. makes a lot of money catering to the needs of the likes of us. I will go back to my cave now and get some more sleep.

[tbob]

Thanks all. The comments support my opinion on this (which is hardly surprising) The thought arose during another one of those discussions with a nonphotographer about the merits of "faking" the scene. Their position was that someone who had never seen the aurora would be mislead. Photographs should, unless obviously artistic, represent reality especially anything purporting to be "NATURE". A valid opinion, just one I no longer share.

I now do images based on reality but not real. I agreed the scene in number two does not represent the scene at that particular moment, but it certainly not is unrealistic. At some moments during an auroral display it is valid. And for a static image it captures the feeling of watching the aurora better than the first.

[Wavelength]

Superb shots

[NorthernFocus]

...for a static image it captures the feeling of watching the aurora better than the first.

For sure.

[bnnrcn]

#2 is a great landscape image for me Trevor

[Dave Humphries]

In response to Dave, give this another thought -- the shot was taken on land, so it is called a landscape; taken of the sky, then we call it a "skyscape" taken on landscape. Follow?

Ah, now there speaks someone who flies far more than I do.

To me; who is 'always' taking photos from the land, if I point the camera up such that the sky forms the majority of the image, then it becomes a skyscape. If I do shoot from an aircraft, then that becomes an 'aerial' shot of the land usually, but I guess a shot of the clouds from 'up there' I think I'd still call a 'skyscape'. Just as I'd call a shot of the sea crashing over rocks a 'seascape'.

It didn't occur to me that if a photographer flies regularly, they might have a different definition.

[Craigie]

Two superb images, my favourite #2.