Topic: No Manip? Bullsh*t (Page 1 of 1)

This person claimed to not have manipulated this photo in any way. No color adjustments, no level adjustments, no contrast adjustments...



I say bullshit. The sun is too high in the sky for it to be that dark, and the color is so damn monochrome. That's not reality.

I wanted to see what some of you experts had to say about this.

Well, it could be done with a filter or it might be the time of day. It can be done without a manip. Who knows ~shrug~

Possible.

Radically underexposing a shot does tend to really intensify color saturation, and often enhances contrast as well. And a daylight shot that dark is *really* underexposed.

We're talking really high f-stop, really fast shutter, and you might need a ND filter on top of that. I don't know if I could even get a sunny daylight shot that dark with f40 and a 1/4000 shutter.

edit: Correction. Not a ND filter. Looking at it again, he's got a deep blue filter on there for sure. Even the sun is blue.




[This message has been edited by Das (edited 08-16-2003).]

That's what I was thinking Das. It is DO-able. I wouldn't be jumping someone saying they did a manip just yet

Keep in mind that the possibilities while taking and developing a photo are quite extensive.

Also keep in mind that until relatively recently, digital manipulation of photos wasn't all that feasible, and you would still find photos of this nature.

So yeah.....totally possible.

DL-44 made a great point. My father's friend is a photographer and he doesn't use anything digital. He's made shots like this before. There are tons and tons (thousands) of extra lense filters that you can stick on the end to get different effects. Das made a good point too. Changing the f-stop can mess with the hue and other things if done correctly. In this case I agree that there was a blue gel over the lense because of that blue sun among everything else.. if this was pure f-stop or something there would be some more yellow found IMO.

Shine and shine. :: [Cell=992] :: [See my team's 30 second animation!! ]

quote:

---

The sun is too high in the sky for it to be that dark ...

---

But remember this is a photo; you're not actually there, seeing the sunlit day with your own eyes. Try shooting a similar shot, with the sun in front of you, exposing for the sky. It should be no surprise that everything else will be highly underexposed.

And there's nothing magical about the color; as it's been suggested, it's most likely just a blue filter, which would aid in darkening everything.

It's a silhouette -- what's so magical about it?

After reading her stats on this photo @ deviantART:

f2.0 aperature
5.0 shutter speed
+2 exposure value
100 ISO
no flash
auto white balance


I don't think it is right off the camera without a manip. It IS possible to do but not the way she says she did it. I looked at her gallery and she always puts no manip at ALL in her details. I'm a bit suspicious of this and a few other photos in her gallery. It's no big deal to me if a photo gets a manip to clean it up. Digital photos get that in PS where film gets it in the darkroom. No biggy but why lie ~shrug~

edit: she also states that is the moon. After looking at the full version view, the sun rays through the clouds make me not believe her even more.



[This message has been edited by Shiiizzzam (edited 08-20-2003).]

Also, if it was the moon, where are the stars?

:::11oh1:::

How do I find her gallery on DeviantART, Shiiizzzam?

here


She deleted the specs from the post she made once someone started a forum topic on it. She also deleted a LOT of her gallery but a few are still there.

I'd be interested to see the forum thread as well.



[This message has been edited by synax (edited 08-21-2003).]

forum post

Ah, I never looked at the specs. Reading all this, I agree that some things are a little cuckoo-caca here. The moon? A 5-sec. exposure? It doesn't add up.

(BTW, I tried looking at the photos comments and no matter how many times I hit "Next 25" or if I change the viewing options to show more, I always see the same comments. I got the impression there were more ... ?)

yuh...there's a lot on that photo page. Maybe try again later. There's about 150 I'm thinking.

Well, based on the specs you posted, she's clearly lying. I don't know why she's trying to pass off a day shot as a night shot, but it's easy to prove:
f2.0 - impossible. The depth of field couldn't include both the person and the horizon (well, it could if you were a long way from the subject, but I doubt the photographer was using an f2.0 1200mm lens )
5 sec exposure - impossible. The water is perfectly defined. The shutter speed is clearly fast. 1/100th at the very least.
auto white balance - impossible. Given that deep blue a scene, the camera would have adjusted back toward neutral.

Given the fast shutter speed (which we know from the 'frozen' water) and the small aperature (which we know from the very deep depth of field), this would have to be a day shot.

Don't know why she was lying about it. As an underexposed day shot with a deep blue tinting, it still had artistic value. Not my cup of tea, but not terrible.

btw, looks like the entire gallery is deleted now.

quote:

---

btw, looks like the entire gallery is deleted now

---

Awwe! Shit! There was a really good photo, manip or not, that was of a tinted green sea and this girl standing in front of it.... I want it back .

Try here

or

here

That be it! Lovely photo that was...

hmmmm i would say it is manipulated .. only shot i have seen come close to that was shot on an 64 ISO slide film (velvia i beleive was the brand) with a blue gel in front of the lens ...

the water does show some movement but it is very little .. so i could beleive a slower shutter speed .. but still i would say maybe 1/2 a sec at the most ...

just to try it out i took a shot outside a bit ago with my dig ... set it to an ISO of 100 ... underexposed it 2 steps ... F11 and a shutter speed of 1/750 ... the photo was near black ... but when i made a few tweaks in PS i could get the sun and rays to look almost identical .. with the same amount of lighting that is in that photo ...

i am not all that familiar with film .. most all of my experience is purely digital ... but a friend mentioned about pushing a low ISO film through at a higher ISO setting to get different effects or colors... that could be a possibility as well ... but not likely...