Manipulation or not?

[Hinkelbein]

This question has been in my mind for a few days now, but I decided to pose it anyway.

It is not my intention to insult anybody, but is this photo manipulated? I don't mean the plane, but the sky:

[photoid=6743762]

Should the photographer feel insulted, this is not my intention, but I must have an answer to my question and saw no other way to have it answered.

Hinkelbein

[seahawk]

It seems to be a HDR shot. Not one I do like, as the effect is overdone, but not manipulated in the conventional sense.

I do prefer a more natural looking HDR appraoch. (shameless selfplug coming)

[photoid=6561078]

[LX-A343]

In all honesty, I don't like it at all. The colors are far too unnatural. 1st thought was "bad HDR" ....

[Alex - Spot-This !]

I like it a lot, not only that one but also the others from Kenny from that very same photoshoot.

Alex

[PMN]

I knew a thread like this was coming!

At this point I have to entirely stand up for the photographer, and (as this is really a case of personal opinion), completely disagree with Stefan and Gerardo (that's me getting slapped in May!) Shooting a lot of things other than planes I see far too many examples of HDR being overused and poorly used, but this is a case where I think HDR has added atmosphere to a scene rather than just make it look like crap, which the vast majority of attempts at HDR do. This is a highly subjective area and there really isn't a right or wrong, but to my eyes it's a excellent and tastefully edited image that's leagues above the majority of HDR I see. As I said in an email to the photographer shortly after it was accepted, I generally hate HDR passionately but this I think is very, very well done. It isn't just a photo, it's art. The fact it's art makes it very open to interpretation so it's absolutely fine if you choose not to like it, I'm just trying to provide the opposite point of view from 'it's just a poorly done HDR', which I don't personally believe it is.

I was the first screener to see that image pop up in the queue. It's certainly processed far beyond what is 'standard', so I voted accept leaving a note saying I couldn't bring myself to reject what I consider to be such a great image. The second screener (I'm not sure who that was) agreed, and I'm very glad because personally I think it deserves to be viewed by a wider audience. So to answer the manipulation question, I wouldn't say it's manipulated as such. I'd say processed, and processed a lot, but not manipulated (which to me is more cloning things out, adding false skies, etc). All that's really happened here is a high degree of contrast and colour adjustment but again, I think it works.

Just my $0.02 anyway!

Paul

P.S. If Philippe who commented on favourtism is reading this, I'd never actually heard of Kenny until I saw this image so that very definitely isn't the case.

[Hinkelbein]

Hmm, it's an absolutely stunning picture. And you are right, it must be shown to a greater audience.

I still have my doubts, not wanting to discredit the photographer at all, for he has made a great picture.

It's just that I feel that you don't see in the picture the real circumstances as they were.

I had to look up what HDR photography is, I hadn't heard of it until my topic.

Another question:
Since I wish to "play" with HDR, is there a site where we can find step-by-step how to do this?

[PMN]

Hmm, it's an absolutely stunning picture.

he has made a great picture.

I agree!

just that I feel that you don't see in the picture the real circumstances as they were.

So you think it's stunning but you feel you don't see it in a 'real' way. If you think it's stunning, why does it matter that it's different to how your eye would naturally see it? The photographer hasn't shown a plane as it would appear to your eye, and that's the entire point. He's created an image that's beyond that; again, it's art. It isn't intended to look 100% natural.

I'm not by any means questioning your opinion; it isn't my place to do that in any way, although it does seem you're contradicting yourself slightly by saying you think it's stunning but then saying it isn't "real". This is probably the non-aviation photographer in me speaking rather than the JP screener, but if it's stunning it really doesn't matter to me personally that it doesn't look real. The fact it doesn't look real and the way that effect has been produced are exactly the reasons I love it. Again though, it's all personal.

Paul

[Hinkelbein]

So the qualifications "stunning" (= very impressive, very beautiful, extremely attractive) and "unreal, unrealistic" cannot occur in one judgement ??

[PMN]

So the qualifications "stunning" (= very impressive, very beautiful, extremely attractive) and "unreal, unrealistic" cannot occur in one judgement ??

It depends how they're used. If you're saying it looks unrealistic and that fact makes it stunning, then of course. If you say it's stunning but then say it doesn't look real almost as a negative point, then that doesn't make much sense to me for the simple reason that (again, to me personally) something that has an element or aspect I don't like is never stunning in my eyes. I can't comment on what you're seeing, only on what you're saying. If you think it's stunning then I really don't see why the fact it doesn't look real is a bad thing as that fact is clearly influencing your opinion that it's actually stunning.

This is the wrong place for such a discussion anyway. We should be in a bar with the beer flowing to discuss this properly!

Paul

[Hinkelbein]

This is the wrong place for such a discussion anyway. We should be in a bar with the beer flowing to discuss this properly!
Paul

Now here I do agree !!

[PMN]

Now here I do agree !!

Ha! Absolutely!

As I said earlier I'm just presenting the alternative point of view, that's all. I don't think Kenny would be too offended by me saying it's something of a Marmite image (you either love it or hate it), and neither option is wrong. It's very personal with images like this, but I'm still very glad to see it on the site as an example of a photographer thinking slightly wider than what's often considered the 'norm'. He deserves credit for that alone!

Paul

[seahawk]

Another question:
Since I wish to "play" with HDR, is there a site where we can find step-by-step how to do this?

http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials/HDR_ps/hdr-ps.htm

Pretty good tutorial

[brianw999]

Just out of interest Paul, did either screener tick "artistic" category.

...and for the non screening photogs, artistic is a category that only screeners can apply.

[PMN]

Just out of interest Paul, did either screener tick "artistic" category.

I can't actually remember doing so to be honest, Brian. I'm not sure if the next screener did but I don't remember ticking it. I should have, it definitely qualifies as artistic!

Paul

P.S. Apologies for taking 6 days to answer!

[oe-vap]

Just out of interest Paul, did either screener tick "artistic" category.

A quick database search from the homepage for all shots having this category shows it has the category checked.
And yes Paul you where the one who ticked it. I just gave the second positive judgement on the photo.
I like it very much !