Meddling
Sometimes what is is better than what could be, sometimes not. I always strive to take a good photograph, one balanced in design and light, carefully framed in the lens, well-angled. And of course I am mindful of content. I do believe that editing and enhancing shouldn't be necessary. Well, most of the time...
With today's image management programs it is so tempting to "mess around" with a picture. Here are two images: the first is the original; the second, an edited, posterized version. (The shot is of the early Christmas morning sunrise last year).
And here's the "doctored" image:
Which do you prefer?
Friday, December 08, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Number one...
The wood grain of the arch is gone in the second one.
I prefer the capturing of the real moment.
Perfect or not...
Because that is real life.
wow..both are spectacular. what had you done to the second one? i almost need to see them side by side.
it is fun to play around with photos. in this case i do like the first photo better.
as far as "natural"...no photo is going to be purely natural as someone actually sees the scene, person, or object being photographed, as you have a particular lens...you have particular lighting... not to mention the limitations of the camera you are using and so on. photos, however realistic, are still mere impressions of the actual scene. yet some photos are more true to the reality that we see.
i would really like to get into photography. it is so much fun to capture life in these still moments. and it is also fun to play and to create art from your photo images.
have fun with it!
i prefer the first one
i came by via meander's site..
I like the first one best. The second one looks like it should be painted on velvet.
Good morning.
I'm off to the Jeffersonville Outlet Mall this morning
I'd say the first one is nicer, but it would depend what you wanted to do with the photo. I noticed you took out that christmas light string in the doctored photo, which was a good choice.
i found your pie post btw and left a comment.
Ah, Craig, you are a discerning viewer. My first choice is the first photo but with the "lay-out" of the second. In other words, I would fix that not-too-attractive dangling light.
You also (rightly, I believe) point out that they are two different animals. A posterized picture MIGHT be art, but it isn't a photograph.
I have to say that I like the dangling light in the first pic. It gives it character somehow.
Yes, but you aren't as damned obsessive compulsive as I am!! By the way, I loved your remark about the second one looking like it should be painted on velvet.
I do prefer the original, hanging light and all, especially for the cloud detail, but having been intimately involved with poster art of a certain bygone decade (sigh . . . there's that age thing again), I rather like the modified one, too. Sort of reminds me, say, of Jefferson Airplane concerts at the Eastman Theater . . .
...and what was ever more surreal than Jefferson Airplane trying to melt down the velvet seats of the sedate Eastman Theater... talk about a TRIP!
I like the original shot better. I like that light just there. Like was said before it adds something to the photo.
Well that's my 2 cents.
I like the first one. Doctoring some things works. I dont know about x-mas lights. The image itself is good enough w/o anything.
Post a Comment