BBC AWARDS: Congratulations to the Winners!

[RichardM]

Anyone notice this is much better than anything in the 2008 calendar?

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

[presidio]

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

Oh, I don't know. I have seen late afternoon light conditions that produce a similar glow and coloration. TJ will have to reveal whether it was manipulated, if he's so inclined.

There's a reason the Sandia Mountains at Albuquerque are called that...it means 'watermelon'. The setting sun turns the rock a decided shade of red/pink, to the point it does look like a large slice of watermelon, and it happens nearly every evening even without clouds.

[RichardM]

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

Oh, I don't know. I have seen late afternoon light conditions that produce a similar glow and coloration. TJ will have to reveal whether it was manipulated, if he's so inclined.

<sigh>  Hopefully TJ can infer my intended meaning (his pic is so vivid that it seems unreal....that's meant as a compliment) rather than assuming I meant to imply he "manipulated" it.  I'd put in the rolling eyes emoticon but you'd probably misinterpret that too.

[STARLITDARKNESS3]

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

Oh, I don't know. I have seen late afternoon light conditions that produce a similar glow and coloration. TJ will have to reveal whether it was manipulated, if he's so inclined.

<sigh>  Hopefully TJ can infer my intended meaning (his pic is so vivid that it seems unreal....that's meant as a compliment) rather than assuming I meant to imply he "manipulated" it.  I'd put in the rolling eyes emoticon but you'd probably misinterpret that too.

u been using that icon alot lately....   

thats not a verbatem quote, but .....  I think thats what you were told..       
i for one, like the icon and think u should use it more...   

[xseption]

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

Oh, I don't know. I have seen late afternoon light conditions that produce a similar glow and coloration. TJ will have to reveal whether it was manipulated, if he's so inclined.

<sigh>  Hopefully TJ can infer my intended meaning (his pic is so vivid that it seems unreal....that's meant as a compliment) rather than assuming I meant to imply he "manipulated" it.  I'd put in the rolling eyes emoticon but you'd probably misinterpret that too.

u been using that icon alot lately....   

thats not a verbatem quote, but .....  I think thats what you were told..       
i for one, like the icon and think u should use it more...   

[RichardM]

I'd put in the rolling eyes emoticon but you'd probably misinterpret that too.

u been using that icon alot lately....   

thats not a verbatem quote, but .....  I think thats what you were told..       
i for one, like the icon and think u should use it more...   

Hey now, don't get all on me!  Stick to the subject and don't get me !

[STARLITDARKNESS3]

oh, sorry. 

yes, very nice colors.  I actually really like that picture.

[xseption]

oh, sorry. 

yes, very nice colors.  I actually really like that picture.

Yes, indeed! Nice colors ... I like the photo as well!!

[tjavery]

Yeah, but those colors just can't be real. 

Oh, I don't know. I have seen late afternoon light conditions that produce a similar glow and coloration. TJ will have to reveal whether it was manipulated, if he's so inclined.

Um... 

Good point. This is probably worth discussing... a little bit.

I think some people believe that a digital photo that has been edited (e.g. "photoshopped") is not completely true. These days, terms such as "digital manipulation (or editing)" and "photoshopping" have taken serious negative connotations.

Some will argue that just by snapping a photo (whether film or digital), you have manipulated the scene.

There's a very interesting set of blog posts (an particularly the comments that follow) going on at TOP:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

So, yes, technically my photo has been manipulated. In fact, the photo is a composite of three different photos. However, the only difference between the photos (aside from being taken a few seconds apart) is the exposure lengths.

Just know that my intent and goal with my photography is to produce images that are as real and truthful as possible.

In the case of this sunset, the range of light between the darkest and lightest areas was so great that my camera's digital sensor could not capture it all in one shot (BTW, neither film or digital have the capability that human eyes do with regards to seeing a wide lightness-to-darkness range). Therefore I had to take several exposures and combine them. The end result is a scene that looks like it did in real life (or as close as possible).

I have amped up the colors some. But this is no more severe than the saturation that comes with film such as Fuji Velvia (slide film). If I were shooting film, that's what I'd be using.

So, you'll have to trust me on this one That's what it really looked like, standing up there getting rained on, breathless from the dash to the edge, and getting my head tripped-out from the vivid colors

[presidio]

So, you'll have to trust me on this one That's what it really looked like, standing up there getting rained on, breathless from the dash to the edge, and getting my head tripped-out from the vivid colors

I never doubted it.

The processing you describe is a far cry from changing colors or editing-in something that was not there, and is analogous to custom darkroom printing (I don't think Ansel Adams was ever accused of manipulation, but he sure worked those negatives hard in the darkroom). Your point about color saturation can easily be demonstrated to anyone unfamiliar with the technical details of how light is rendered by various films. Take 6 exact images with 6 different types of film and you will see 6 versions of what was there based on color chemistry. All are an accurate representation of the scene and it boils down to personal preference.

On the topic of digital sensors, I have seen an impressive demonstration of post-processing that reveals an incredible range of information being captured in shadowed areas that is not obvious before working on the image. The darkness is incrementally peeled away to show the obscured detail. Your compositing technique is used there as well to enhance the photo to 'what the eye saw. This was done on a 3 megapixel image (I think that was the size, but it was certainly no larger than 6).

[Casa Grande]

So, you'll have to trust me on this one That's what it really looked like, standing up there getting rained on, breathless from the dash to the edge, and getting my head tripped-out from the vivid colors

there is no explanation necessary here!  One of the beauties of this modern photo world is the ability to blend HDR images together....and you do it so well!  The fact is, the human eye sees in HDR.....the ability for today's modern photo manipulation technology allows you to see a picture the way you saw it when you took it.....this is one reason why when most people look at their sunset pic when they get it back from the photo-mat, it just isn't the same as being there....ah, the digital age!   

[tjavery]

True, you can work a digital image to bring out more apparent dynamic range, and I do to some extent. But if you go too far, then you can bring about some nasty looking noise and crud in your photo. Some photo geeks will claim that they can squeeze a good 9-stops or so of range out of DSLR. However, they're just talking about data. When it comes to real, useable (and nice looking) pixels, then I think the effective working range of DSLRs is a little less (about 6 stops, or so).

What's the human eyeball range? 12 stops?

Although there is the old school way of doing it with filters:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/digital_filters/grad_nd.jpg

But for me, that's just one more piece of gear to buy, lug into the field, maintain and keep clean, and replace after I've destroyed it in the BB backcountry