just goofing off tonight with various things just want to see if this was a decent attempt or worthy only for the trash bin
just goofing off tonight with various things just want to see if this was a decent attempt or worthy only for the trash bin
For the composite itself, it depends on the “style” you’re going for. If you expect anyone to believe that moon is real from this focal length, then I’d say there’s room for improvement. However if you are developing a more “sci-fi” digital art look, then it fits a little more.
i was watching an stoppers critique on a very famous photographer who had said he made a shot all in camera but the moon was unrealistically huge again the land elements and it made me think of this shot and how it could be improved all be it fake as hell lol... im still just playing and learning ill toss up the original in camera shot as well
I'm going to guess you're talking about the video where they talk about Peter Lik's photo. Yeah, he's well known for being full of BS but still making an embarrassing amount of money off of rich people who either don't know better or don't care.
lmao yup thats the one
Apparently, those 'rich people' like his work. Just think, if you could tap that market, we'd be seeing links to your work. Art is in the eye of the beholder and some of the 'beholders' have lotsa' money and a different view than you of what is and isn't art.
Yeah, the type of photos that “look good” will depend on who the audience is. I recently posted about this on another photo that a few other people called way over saturated. While it looked that way to us, I stated that could see a market for it with non-photographers
There’s no wrong way to make art. It’s all based on what the artist wants, what the purpose is, and who the market/audience is. However, I’d rather not lie about the authenticity of my photos just to raise the market value. If my work ever becomes well known and they do share a link about it, I’d rather it not be due to me blatantly lying about my photos being “100% done in camera” while being obviously photoshopped.
And for the record, I never said his work wasn’t art.
Yeah I commented on the same thing on same post it is weird how you can design your work to fit a certain market but for the most part I like to have my work look like what I saw with a little bit of a punch either with color or contrast. Having said that I am having fun playing with luminosity masks lol. Like I said I’m learning and experimenting with as much as I can till I find my own way of finishing my images.
Yeah, I think “the perfect pasta sauce” comparison is an apt one for photography. There is no one right way to do photography. Every market/audience wants something different, so you just have to find one that fits your style.
i agree that one should never make a composite image and try to pass it off as reality. Beyond that, it's up to the consumer to decide if the shot is worthy of his/her money.
My comment was meant as a response to your assertion about rich people and your referencing 'an embarrassing amount of money'.
This wreaks of wealth envy. I'm retired and on a fixed income other than the prints I sell. I sell enough to keep me in printer ink, photo paper, and wood (I make my frames). I, for one, would truly enjoy it if one of those rich people would pay me a butt load of money for my work.
I’m not envious of his wealth or how he makes it. I also make an embarrassing amount of money relative to the effort required. My job is also one of my hobbies. I use “an embarrassing amount of money” to mean an amount of money that makes me think “holy cow!”. My nikkor lenses cost me an embarrassing amount of money. Peanut better in Japan, you guessed it, an embarrassing amount of money. It’s best not to infer too much from one’s linguistic choices, especially in text, where tone is hard to convey. As someone who was on the brink of homelessness and somehow managed to fumble his way into a comfortable financial situation, I can assure you that “an embarrassing amount of money” is often relative to how much I have. I used to think a sausage egg McMuffin from McDonald’s was an embarrassing about of money. Now I eat them a few times a month. So yeah, digging too deep into the meaning behind my exaggerated, and often verbose, word choices is like searching for the deeper meaning behind a ham sandwich you found on a park bench.
As for my comment about what rich people think, this actually goes for a lot of the general public, a lot of people don’t care about how something was made, they just care about the end results. How many people do you think are actually watching the “behind the scenes” on their DVD relative to the number of people watching the movie. It’s pretty low. Not everyone can be informed about or be bothered to look up how something was made, and most don’t care, but rather choose to enjoy the end results. Same goes for photography. None of my friends or family ask me “is this a composite?” when I post a photo on Facebook because they don’t even know what “a composite” is. None of the even ask me about the process of getting the photo. If they like how it looks, then they like it, simple as that.
As for the “butt load” of money. I think we’d all like a “butt load” of money doing what we love. However, as I mentioned before it comes down to my personal beliefs. I’d rather not make a “butt load” of money by lying about the authenticity of my photos. I’d rather be more like Thomas Heaton, an honest and humble person making a comfortable living doing what they love, all while staying well respected by the photography community.
All I can say is words mean things. Since I have no clue about your history, I have to glean what I can from what you've posted.
I used to work on cars 'back in the day'. I still have my dwell meter and timing light. When someone went for a ride in my car, unless they happened to be a carguy, they didn't ask about what sort of headers I used or what kind of cam grind I had. They enjoyed the ride and that's all that mattered to them.
Same for photography. I sell my prints. When I get a technical question, 99% of the time, it's from someone that has at least dabbled in photography. And why should a non-photographer that likes a Sunset that I did want to know if I used an ND filter?
I don't expect a client to understand the nuances of photography and why should I? I just had carpal tunnel surgery done on my left hand. I didn't need to know what sort of cutting instrument the surgeon used or what sort of sort of needle he used to sew me up. My concern was about results.
No, I think it is an interesting try. The moon does not look fake and well balanced with the land. You hold something!
thanks David i appreciate it...i wish i could say it was real that would be spectacular to see in real life
The sky with a moon looks beautiful, with artistic and romantic connotation, and I think you need to save it for a more interesting lower part, to better fit a some future "story". If you want some surreal approach moon can be much bigger, and for a realistic approach maybe it should be a little smaller. Nice work!
thanks Radisa ill keep at it
IMO, composites often look the best if the base image is focused stacked well. If depth of field isn’t an issue it makes adding elements to the image much easier, just make sure they are in sharp focus. To my eye the moon looks sharper than the background, which looks unnatural. Maybe the images were shot at different apertures, whatever the difference may be, it is important to match depth of field in a composited image. Keep up the good work!
Makes complete sense I will take note of this for future stuff thanks John
I'd just like to compliment all the posters for your polite, constructive remarks, which make Fstoppers a pleasure to visit compared to so much we see on the internet.
And keep having fun experimenting, Joseph!
thanks Chris
I think it looks nice, and pretty natural.
thanks Pete!!!