When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There are many purest in this field that do not believe in photo manipulation, but every since I was young and had my own dark room I have been playing with composite photography. It was much more difficult back then, but with PhotoChop the creative ideas are endless. Here is one that I did recently. Below is a simple example of what can be done. I took 2 pics in my den, did some work in LR and then the final work in photoshop. I know its not for everyone, but being creative/artistic doesnt need to stop with just taking the picture (we could probably argue this for hours lol).
Nice work, very interesting. I hear that all the time about being a "Purist" ...and people that make statements like that often do not know that the great Ansel Adams did a lot of image manipulation in the dark room. Personally I come from the school of "getting it right in camera", however obviously that does not apply to things like composites or high dynamic range where part of the ART is to actually manipulate in post production. Similarly I hear "Purists" say things like, "I ONLY shoot in natural light because it is the best!" and without a doubt ever person I have heard make that claim says that because they don't understand how to modify light!
Your double exposure looks well thought out and actually a little scary. Like Nitro, I like to get my images right with my camera settings but I am no stranger to post processing either. I have combined images to form a good Milky Way rendition and processed the sky to make the stars pop 10 times more than the eye can see. That is the nature of Astro photography.
The only problem I have with processing is the guy or gal who spends multiple hours in Photoshop to change every aspect of the image and proclaims, look at the picture I took last week. There is a fine line between good photography and computer generated images. Each individual has to determine where that line is.
Most modern cameras have the ability to do Lightroom processing electronically within the camera and if you have the patience to go through all the settings you can produce a very respectable image as taken. My current camera and the one prior to this one also had the ability to do multiple exposures and HDR as one image.Where does that put the line?
I found an example of that I was referencing in my first post. Here is a shot I took at the last Solar Eclipse 4 years ago. This is a composite for several shots I took that day from about 40 mins before the eclipse to 40 mins afterward.
Your double exposure looks well thought out and actually a little scary. Like Nitro, I like to get my images right with my camera settings but I am no stranger to post processing either. I have combined images to form a good Milky Way rendition and processed the sky to make the stars pop 10 times more than the eye can see. That is the nature of Astro photography.
The only problem I have with processing is the guy or gal who spends multiple hours in Photoshop to change every aspect of the image and proclaims, look at the picture I took last week. There is a fine line between good photography and computer generated images. Each individual has to determine where that line is.
Most modern cameras have the ability to do Lightroom processing electronically within the camera and if you have the patience to go through all the settings you can produce a very respectable image as taken. My current camera and the one prior to this one also had the ability to do multiple exposures and HDR as one image.Where does that put the line?
Interesting point that many of the latest cameras have the functionality built in so "get it right in the camera" count then?
Composite Photography
