by JohnD » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:26 pm
georgeedwards wrote:I have read the response to my earlier questioning the veracity of this picture. The technical explanation about short time exposures may be plausible, but the detail in the hoodoos, especially the softly curving slopes on the right, look cut-out, as does the rest of the outlines. My own experience and photography of Bryce revealed highly textured and detailed irregularities on the edges of the rock forms, such smooth edges are inconsistent with naturally occurring erosion. Also the lighting of the forms looked airbrushed, not an overall capture of the irregularities of detail, the Bryce forms have many surface irregularities that cause differences in tone and small shadows, some are just barely visible in this photo, the real rocks are not that smooth or clean edged. If this is a real photograph, it is so poorly contrived by the "roving spotlight" as to look fake.
You are being most ungenerous, george.
First, here's a pic of Bryce Canyon, that is said to be a 30 sec exposure with a fixed camera. Nary a star trail there.
Second, Ben is lighting the hoodoos with a powerful torch, that he holds alongside the camera. As a result, there are no shadows, that would provide relief and contour to the rocks. If you are a photographer, think of how much better a flash pic is if the light is 'bounced' off nearby walls or ceilings, or if the flash is off-camera, than a flash-on-camera shot, for the same reason.
Ben,
Have you tried having a confederate hold the lamp, some distance from you, when you take pics like this?
John
[quote="georgeedwards"]I have read the response to my earlier questioning the veracity of this picture. The technical explanation about short time exposures may be plausible, but the detail in the hoodoos, especially the softly curving slopes on the right, look cut-out, as does the rest of the outlines. My own experience and photography of Bryce revealed highly textured and detailed irregularities on the edges of the rock forms, such smooth edges are inconsistent with naturally occurring erosion. Also the lighting of the forms looked airbrushed, not an overall capture of the irregularities of detail, the Bryce forms have many surface irregularities that cause differences in tone and small shadows, some are just barely visible in this photo, the real rocks are not that smooth or clean edged. If this is a real photograph, it is so poorly contrived by the "roving spotlight" as to look fake.[/quote]
You are being most ungenerous, george.
First, here's a pic of Bryce Canyon, that is said to be a 30 sec exposure with a fixed camera. Nary a star trail there.
Second, Ben is lighting the hoodoos with a powerful torch, that he holds alongside the camera. As a result, there are no shadows, that would provide relief and contour to the rocks. If you are a photographer, think of how much better a flash pic is if the light is 'bounced' off nearby walls or ceilings, or if the flash is off-camera, than a flash-on-camera shot, for the same reason.
Ben,
Have you tried having a confederate hold the lamp, some distance from you, when you take pics like this?
John