Notice: Undefined index: Bumped in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1850
Notice: Undefined index: SecondBoardID in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1851
Notice: Undefined index: LatestPoster in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1852 Landscape Photographer - Photography - FM Forums
This is my first post. I registered and felt I needed to comment on this image based on the responses. This image was posted on other forums. The question was asked here if this was a single image and the photographer did not answer, at least I didn't see an answer.
The image appears very cool. i like it a lot (except the color balance), but it looks like a digital creation. There are multiple reasons why. First and foremost, the reflections of the trees are blurry but the reflections of the stars are sharp. 2) There is a reflection of a star in the middle of the reflection of the tent. 3) The far side of the lake shows no reflections of the far trees and mountains, yet there are sharp star reflections. I know of no physics that will produce such an image: sharp reflections from infinity and blurry reflections from close by objects. The light reflected from water is just a few percent of the incident light so the reflections should look dimmer. The view is obviously a relatively wide angle image, and the perspective should change in the reflection but the stars do not appear to be any different than in the sky. It is unlikely such a deep night sky image could be done in a single untracked image, so the sky would need to be tracked to get a longer exposure to bring out so many stars. That means the reflections need to be tracked along a different axis (yes, I have done this).
I would hope that the photographer can explain why I am wrong and explain how physics could produce the reflections observed, or come clean that this image is faked. I feel this is important as I have come across other fantastic images that turn out to be fakes, and that really takes away from those who do great nightscapes without fakery. And in my opinion, it is fine to produce such images, just properly disclose what was done.
So how was this image made?
(Side note: the dark, moonless night sky away from cities is not blue, the Milky Way is not blue, and there are no really blue stars. But I acknowledge it is popular for digital photographers to warp night sky colors to blue.)
Roger Clark
Mar 21, 2015 at 02:27 PM
Notice: Undefined index: adsensetopicmiddle in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 1500
Saw this on the main page and had to take a look. What an awesome image! I love the vivid greens on the foreground trees and grass. I kind of figured it was some kind of composite but it doesn't take anything away from it.
