Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

I'm not sure anything needs to be explained. You are the creator of the image you wish others to see. If you are trying to deceive someone for some kind of benefit, it becomes a different story.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks, Frank. I understand your point. And probably no general statement fits all with regards to whether it's necessary to explain what's been changed/added/deleted. I think I would feel "cheated" if someone posted a gorgeous landscape with an added element, such as a moon, that made a bigger impact - and I wasn't informed of the addition. On the other hand, ignorance is bliss?

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Images with two subjects can be competing or complimentary.
Competing usually bad, complimentary usually good.

To make them complimentary requires a balanced composition.
The easiest way to do this for these images is to make the two subjects diagonally opposed to each other.
I will address #1 because I like it better than the other two.
It doesn't quite have the diagonal opposition.
The mountain is a little bit too central for that.
But if you were able to frame it so that the mountain is in the bottom left corner and the moon in the top right, it would achieve that balance.
It might be little hard to achieve that by cropping this one as the mountain doesn't quite have enough space to push it into the corner. The bottom left side of the mountain might end up being "cramped".
But in retaking this type of shot in the future maybe a slightly wider focal length might make it easier to achieve.

Image #3 could be cropped with the mountain bottom right and the moon top left, but you start to run into the same problem with the mountain not having quite enough space on the right side, makes it still a little too central.
It would be nice if the moon was a fraction further left in this one.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Linda, you have me really curious. If your just looking what difference does it make? I would just say
wow that's cool. If your buying you have the right to ask about it, and if not told then I would feel cheated. What if they posted a gorgeous portrait with something removed? Ignorance is something we spend our whole lives trying to eliminate.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Different strokes....
All based, as is so much of art, on opinion.
Personally...( that's the most important word of all that follow) the great majority of my landscapes are images I create for what I consider maximal effect/ beauty/ emotional impact....specifically with no intent to produce a documentary image. If a tree limb intrudes on otherwise effective internal framing, it's gone! If the moon would have better compositional effect if larger...smaller, a bit higher and to the right??? Done.
Are there exceptions?
Absolutely. When the image is of an iconic site, under no circumstances would I violate Cosmic laws by moving the moon! But lose an offending branch? Still fair game.
They are my images, and my rules.
It's all, in the final analysis, about the image (as far as I'm concerned) and I feel no obligation to discuss any aspect of post-exposure processing.
The patron likes the image or doesn't .

Dave

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Don't fall over with awe at the mention of Adams! Moonrise is a fabulous photograph, but not because the name is Ansel Adams. It's great because Adams went to huge effort to make it what it is. He did the right things.

Comparing the right things he did with images you have made or are working on is a very good exercise in creativity. What are the things he did? How did he control the effects, such as tonal relationships, balance between different parts, and lines or shapes that lead the viewer's eyes? Look to see if your image has the potential for the same or similar types of processing effects. Do that before the shutter release as well as after! (I think that to a great degree that is exactly what you were doing by posting three images and asking questions, eh?)

Use Adams as a yardstick. I guess he works well as a religious icon, but that helps museum curators a lot more than photographers... :-)


Ain't that the truth! Fifty years ago we had to buy Life magazine, or visit MOMA, or whatever to see great photographs, and then we didn't have to sort through them to decide which were great and which weren't. Today there are a billion images in front of us every day, and most of them are sort of average in all ways. Sorting through them to find those that Life might have published isn't easy, and we no longer even think in terms of a photograph that good.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments, lighthouse!

I tried a bit of experimenting in cropping #1 before posting; I should have mentioned.

I also recall that at the time of the shots, I was initially excited that the moon was passing directly over the mountain, and then realized that was not going to be a good composition :)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

For me, I think it boils down to subject matter and the amount of manipulation.

Do I care if an image of a grizzly bear about to catch a leaping salmon in a stream is a composite or real? I most definitely do!

Do I care if you remove a branch that's growing out of a bird's head? Not in the least; in fact I'd recommend you do it :)

And with landscapes, it might have to do with my personal experiences of so often being awed by the beauty and the moment of being in the right time, right place. Yes, I do pp for how I want to present, but it's still the original moment in time that captured my heart :)

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thank you, Dave! Very interesting to read these opinions. Great food for thought.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thank you for your follow-up Apaflo. Terrific and interesting comments!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Ahhhhh .... that wide blurry line again.
Degrees of difference ..... removing a pimple .... or adding a moon ......... removing a piece of garbage ..... or adding a rainbow ........ removing the fourth shell so it is a grouping of three .... removing a distracting person or light pole or tv antenna from the background ... adding a group of birds in the sky ........
Some will be seen as post work, some will be seen as cheating ...... some people will see it all as cheating ..... some people will see it all as poetic licence.
Is it a lie to do it? ..... no .... is it a lie to misrepresent it? ... yes ....
Does it matter? .... sometimes yes ... sometimes no.

My own personal opinion.
I have a lot less problem with items being removed, than with items being added.
That includes at the scene before the image is taken, as well as in post work.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

I guess that's where we differ. You have problems with items being removed or added, I do not.
A child sitting in a rocking chair seems to be more interesting with a teddy bear inserted either before or after the shot. We all have our opinions and you are certanly entitled to yours.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

I find myself in that weird in-between, where I do very little post processing, but appreciate the creativity that go into composites. S-

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Ah but the burning question is do you want to be informed it's a composite when it's not obvious? :)

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

See, I am so ignorant about all of this. I feel once you start doing anything besides move a LR slider you are creating something other than what was captured, brush work cloning what ever.