1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Sedona Arizona-and a question

Discussion in 'Landscapes, Architecture, and Cityscapes' started by rbsinto, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. Last October, my wife and I flew to Phoenix Arizona to attend the wedding of a life-long (we met in first grade in 1953) friend's son, but first spent a few days in Sedona.
    The day before we arrived there were severe rainstorms with serious flash-flooding and for our first two days there, the skies were cloudy and the temperature relatively cold.
    One morning while on our way to the Grand canyon, when our tour stopped to pick up passengers, I had a few minutes to grab a photo of a nearby landscape scene shrouded in early morning fog and cloudy skies. As taken the scene has homes and various bits of civilization in the foreground which I feel detracts and so I produced a version with all traces of civilization removed, which I prefer. As I literally never do photography of this type, I wondered what the feeling is among those who do, of manipulation of this sort. I would never enter this in any nature-type competition as I understand the rules about manipulation are quite strict, but I wondered if this sort of thing is frowned upon. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
    For the sake of clarity, I am posting both shots.
    Nikon D3
    zoom-Nikkor 24-70 2.8 auto focus
    exposure probably f8 @ 1/60th
    Sedona AZ-5-1920.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Sedona AZ-5 second version-1920.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  2. I can accept, and like, either of them, though I much prefer the first--I like the contrast between the wildness and civilization.
     
  3. Nick,
    Thanks for commenting.
    I appreciate your point of view.
    Robert
     
  4. I should add that the second one makes a very strong image with its evenly dark foreground.
     
  5. Job well done! So well done, I wonder why you didn't take the little bit of extra time required to remove the foreground trees in the bottom right corner.

    It's your photo, so it should be your rightful choice to make those changes or not. As for preference, I like the first one better because it shows the man-made objects in the context of nature.

    If instead I felt the buildings detracted from the scene in your photo, I wouldn't hesitate to remove them. Indeed, I made a photo of a tree in South Africa and went to considerable effort to remove some small buildings and a fence line that detracted from the subject.
     
  6. Mike,
    Thanks for commenting.
    I didn't remove the trees you referred to because I didn't notice them(!!!!!).Shame on me!
    Robert
     
  7. Notice that EXIF data is now automatically being displayed beneath the photos so long other software hasn't stripped it. It also indicates a different lens than what you remember using.
     
  8. I like them both. My daughter lives in Sedona. Beautiful city.
     
  9. Mike,
    Then it was my 24-70 2.8 Nikkor.
    Robert
     
  10. I like then both. If I was to touch-up the first one I would darken down the building until you almost could not see them. But they would still be there. You are the creator ands it is your choice.
     
  11. There is a difference between making a visual record of someplace and a visual impression of someplace. I think both are valid. All photography is basically artificial manipulation. Both good images.
     
  12. I wouldn't say that about forensic photography.
     
  13. To be honest, I don't know a lot about forensic photography. My understanding is that it is intended to make visual record of the crime scene so that it accurately shows the position and character of the scene and related objects.

    I would say that the artificial part is the reduction of a three dimensional space onto a two dimensional plane, that the color gamut and dynamic range are (still) not quite up to the full visual spectrum, and the lens choice may introduce perspective distortions. All I'm saying is that the photograph is not the thing itself, but an edited version of it.
     
  14. Agreed
     
  15. I don’t see a problem with manipulating your photo. You did a good job! You are the artist and can create however you desire.
     
  16. Good job on removing those buildings. Hard to pick which one Is better, but I’d lean towards the 2nd photo.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.