I didn’t take Chris’s comments as being argumentative. One of the things about this image is that it does have a natural look to it, but most photographers looking at it are also a bit perplexed as to how it could’ve been shot! And indeed if it had been a single image this final photo would basically be impossible. Regretfully I can’t post the two original exposures that I merged As they would clearly show that this photo can only exist as a result of a great deal of manipulation.

Richard, merged two exposures, one where the sky was right but foreground was basically a silhouette, and one exposure where foreground was correctly exposed and sky was blown out. Once aligned, I had to do a small bit of pixel painting to eliminate a few spots where alignment wasn’t perfect. When taking to shot, I had to sit for thirty minutes waiting for the sun to drop behind the tree branch to help block the sun directly. Slight tone-mapping on the sky exposure to boost cloud structure a little. Some color specific adjustments to get the warmth I wanted without losing the mood of being high altitude with snow!

I think it illustrates my position that just because nature can be breathtakingly beautiful, sometimes as photographers we can use extensive manipulation to bring out the drama of what we see. There is no real justification for rejecting, belittling, or minimizing such efforts.

Indeed, I’d suggest that this highly manipulated image is much closer to the actual experience one would have viewing the actual scene than any image taken SOOC could be!

Respectfully, no it’s not possible. I am away from home. The original was done in 2011. Those files are somewhere on my computer at home so not readily accessible. But again, exactly how I did the manipulation on this image is not really the point. The point is that there is no justification for attempting to limit what a photographer does as far as the extent of manipulations if the final image is a good one. And, in some cases it is necessary to process and manipulate an image in order to reveal what we see in nature. Sometimes our equipment places limitations that can only be overcome in the digital darkroom. Simply saying that nature is beautiful is not a justification for saying a photographer should not use whatever tools he has at his disposal in order to make the shot that represents how he sees the beauty nature provides.

I must respectfully disagree. The two images that were combined for the shots are taken seven stops apart, Giving it a dynamic range somewhere in the area of 18 stops. I think that exceeds the current limits of most cameras.

Getting the proper exposure in both the sky and the foreground when shooting into the sun like this would make getting this shot in a single exposure pretty much impossible. One can’t expose properly for the sky without getting a silhouette as the foreground, and one cannot properly expose for the foreground without completely blowing out the sky. Seeing the two exposures that I used here separately it would be obvious.

My point however is that there is no justification for putting limitations on the manipulation that photographers wish to apply to their images, and that it does not, as the OP implied, Result in some disservice to nature.

Let’s see if we can bring this back to the original question posted in the thread. The OP seems to suggest that because nature reveals itself so beautifully photographers should not make adjustments to the images of nature they create with their camera. He implies that we are in someway doing a disservice to nature by manipulating our images. My response has always been to ask, what is the justification for placing such a limitation on the ability of the photographer to create an image along the lines of the aesthetics that he desires? I would submit that no such justification exists! The ONLY thing that matters is the final image, not how one got to it.

To illustrate my point I’m posting one of my images below. It is HIGHLY manipulated. In fact, this image could not exist in this form without manipulation. It is a combination of two exposures, neither of which by themselves could be even remotely acceptable finished works. Have I somehow done a disservice to nature by creating it? Should I have abandoned the opportunity to create this image because it required me to go beyond what my camera could produce? I think not.

(Download)

If one is talking about the border on the print, assuming it will be beneath a mat, it really doesn't matter. if one is talking about the dimensions and proportions of the matting, well that is a different story. Most professional framers will aim for the following:

Equal mat borders if possible.

For prints that require balancing the sides and top/bottom to fit a standard frame, sides should be narrower that top/bottom. (Having wider mats on the sides is perceptually "awkward" and most professional framers will advice against it)

If you need/prefer to "weight" top/bottom (often done with prints that are significantly taller than wide), the bottom mat would ALWAYS be the wider of the two.

While custom printing/framing may work for studio photographers, they are a distinct disadvantage for those selling in other venues such as art festivals. In those settings one would prefer to have as few special orders as possible. Special orders add time and expense to the sale. Most photographers selling in these venues will offer their images as framed prints, matted prints (both with neutral mats), and un-matted prints. The buyer has the choice of which will work best for their decorating scheme and budget. My experience is that (surprisingly) un-matted prints are usually the slowest sellers. Matted prints sell the most, with framed pieces next.

I usually print with at least a 1 inch border, sometimes more. In the border is printed the title of the image and copyright information. I then hand sign in that margin as well. The printed information will be covered by a mat. I also sign the mat. Most of the images that I sell or matted with a white or slightly off-white mat cut two dimensions that will fit most commercial frames. Those prints that I sell unmatted are still printed with a margin and the title and copy right and signature. For buyers who will mat and frame the image themselves I always offer to sign within the corner of the actual image so that it will show once the piece is framed.

The biggest objection that I have toward printing edge to edge is that it can make matting and framing more difficult. It’s preferable to have your mat overlap the print by only 1/8 of an inch. Printing edge to edge complicates mounting the image so that it is properly positioned in the mat window.

I've engaged in such conversations numerous times, and can attest to the fact that I have solved ALL of the world's problems countless times over. The problem is, nobody listens to me!

Ain't it the truth!

I accept that, as with most genres of art, different photographers have different preferences in style and vision; some prefer minimal processing, while others prefer extensive manipulation of the captured image. What perplexes me is the strong tendency by those who don't care for large amounts of processing, to label such efforts as being "fake", "deceptions", "not real photography", or (as one fellow told me while looking at my images at an art festival) "lies"! The use of these judgemental labels goes beyond simply expressing one's own preferences. Such labels strongly imply that the image's creator is engaged in some nefarious attempt to "put one over" on the viewers. Such an implication is, in my opinion, nothing short of an insult to all photographers whose creative approach includes high levels of processing in their attempt to create an image that reflects their personal aesthetic vision.

Personal preferences are just that; personal. We're all free to like what we like and to dislike what we dislike. However, if when expressing personal preferences one insists on using negative, judgemental labels to describe one's non-preferences, it might be wise to examine one's understanding of what it means to be engaged in the creative and expressive activity of photography.

"Support of extreme post-processing in defense of creativity is no vice. And insistence on straight out of camera in pursuit of "purity" is no virtue". -Gary Boldwater-

In addition to the Photographing the Southwest book mentioned above, you might take a look at some of the regional photo guides offered by Robert Hitchman on his website “Photograph America”. He has a number that would be useful for the Moab area. The guides are 10-12 pages each, written by a photographer for other photographers. You can download each for $8. I keep them stored on my smartphone so they are available when I’m in the field.

http://www.photographamerica.com/newsletters-byregion.htm

As was mentioned, you may not really need a guide for most places in the Moab area. Trails in the National Parks (Arches, Canyonlands) are generally well marked and a great many of the more popular sites are easily accessible by car and a very short walk

The one thing I would strongly advice is to be prepared for hot weather. Moab in June can get very hot. Take proper precautions even for short hikes.

A bit harsh (to the point of being unfair and somewhat belittling). While individual images may not turn out well, broadly dismissing a whole approach that some may take and declaring it a fail is pretty over the top.

I respect artistic traditions, but I don’t consider them sacrosanct, nor do I think those who wish to exercise a different approach in their creativity are in any way being dishonest.

Without a full portfolio of work you are at a real disadvantage, as a great many venues will be closed to you. Most art festivals require that you “jury in” by supplying 3-5 images of your best work as well as an image of your display booth. Ocassionally, local community shows will allow a local camera club to have a booth where members can display and sell their pooled works, but these are not as common as shows run by a promoter. Galleries also often require a portfolio of work before they will consider offering space to an artist. Most take a large commission on sales (40-50% is common) You may have better luck with an artist cooperative gallery if there is one in your area, although even those may require that you have additional works, and they may have a space rental fee or “time manning the store”. Selling art is not an easy task even for those with extensive catalogs.