September 30, 2020
Warp Speed Ahead and into the Vortex...
What is a photo? Is it a true to life single shot of what the photographer saw though their lens at the time an place when the shutter was clicked? Or is it the vision of what the photographer wants you to see, what they imagined the scene to look like. Is it legitimate to change the color or the image or the saturation of the image in whole or in part(pretty much every photographer does this)? How about removing things from an image, or adding things to an image, is that kosher? These are the things photographer argue about. My feeling is you can do what you want as long as you disclose it. If you replaced a boring blue sky with one with some clouds, say that you did. Sometimes the skill of the photographer is not being lucky at being at the right place and time to catch lightning(there are devices that help with this), but in convincingly selling their vision by using the tools of the trade(both camera and image processing) competently and effectively.
So why the philosophical mumbo jumbo? These images are as fake as a $3 bill. They were not created in-camera on location, in fact I don't think they could be created in-camera. They are purely creations in Photoshop. I used 10-20 images that I'd already shot(sometimes for traditional star trails) and combined them to reduce noise and the applied an action(a Photoshop macro) about 50 times to create the sky portion of these images. I then added the foreground, shot the same night.
I hope you enjoy these images, I hope to produce more like them in the future(I'm partial to the zoom effect). If you like them keep in mind that prints of a any the images seen here are available for purchase at my on-line store https://www.billinglendaleca.com/Galleries/On-The-Road/September-30-2020/) and if you like my work in general, consider becoming one of my patrons https://www.patreon.com/BillinGlendaleCA).
Read MoreWhat is a photo? Is it a true to life single shot of what the photographer saw though their lens at the time an place when the shutter was clicked? Or is it the vision of what the photographer wants you to see, what they imagined the scene to look like. Is it legitimate to change the color or the image or the saturation of the image in whole or in part(pretty much every photographer does this)? How about removing things from an image, or adding things to an image, is that kosher? These are the things photographer argue about. My feeling is you can do what you want as long as you disclose it. If you replaced a boring blue sky with one with some clouds, say that you did. Sometimes the skill of the photographer is not being lucky at being at the right place and time to catch lightning(there are devices that help with this), but in convincingly selling their vision by using the tools of the trade(both camera and image processing) competently and effectively.
So why the philosophical mumbo jumbo? These images are as fake as a $3 bill. They were not created in-camera on location, in fact I don't think they could be created in-camera. They are purely creations in Photoshop. I used 10-20 images that I'd already shot(sometimes for traditional star trails) and combined them to reduce noise and the applied an action(a Photoshop macro) about 50 times to create the sky portion of these images. I then added the foreground, shot the same night.
I hope you enjoy these images, I hope to produce more like them in the future(I'm partial to the zoom effect). If you like them keep in mind that prints of a any the images seen here are available for purchase at my on-line store https://www.billinglendaleca.com/Galleries/On-The-Road/September-30-2020/) and if you like my work in general, consider becoming one of my patrons https://www.patreon.com/BillinGlendaleCA).
