Jump to content
rbsinto

Sedona Arizona-and a question

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Last October, my wife and I flew to Phoenix Arizona to attend the wedding of a life-long (we met in first grade in 1953) friend's son, but first spent a few days in Sedona.
The day before we arrived there were severe rainstorms with serious flash-flooding and for our first two days there, the skies were cloudy and the temperature relatively cold.
One morning while on our way to the Grand canyon, when our tour stopped to pick up passengers, I had a few minutes to grab a photo of a nearby landscape scene shrouded in early morning fog and cloudy skies. As taken the scene has homes and various bits of civilization in the foreground which I feel detracts and so I produced a version with all traces of civilization removed, which I prefer. As I literally never do photography of this type, I wondered what the feeling is among those who do, of manipulation of this sort. I would never enter this in any nature-type competition as I understand the rules about manipulation are quite strict, but I wondered if this sort of thing is frowned upon. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated.
For the sake of clarity, I am posting both shots.
Nikon D3
zoom-Nikkor 24-70 2.8
exposure probably f8 @ 1/60th

 

Sedona AZ-5-1920.jpg

Sedona AZ-5 second version-1920.jpg

Edited by rbsinto

I shoot film. That's film. F...i....l....m. You remember film don't you? It was in all the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an in situ kind of photographer, so for me manipulation doesn't play a large part in the grand scheme of things (I may have removed a blade of grass or two from a wildlife shot in the past though). However, having said that I think that the only person you should be aiming to please is yourself if you're not shooting for somebody else, so if changing things up in your images provides you with a result you enjoy better, then yes, by all means do it. 

 

In this particular instance I prefer the image with the houses in it. I think it tells a better story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dallas.

So far your comment seems to be the common opinion: that the original tells a better story.

Robert


I shoot film. That's film. F...i....l....m. You remember film don't you? It was in all the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with the don’t clone side, but I’m probably a bit too lazy and impatient to make a good job of it if I did want to do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too tend to be conservative in this context. For me, anything that can be done with film in the darkroom can also be done to a digital image. Anything else is not photography but something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not mind editing or seeing an edited image

 

 Personally I would have removed the most distracting houses and leave the others

 

 


Regards,

Armando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, Vivion, Armando,

Thanks for commenting.

Most viewers feel the inclusion of the homes tells a better story, but I rather like the "cleaned up" version.

To each his own, I guess.

Robert


I shoot film. That's film. F...i....l....m. You remember film don't you? It was in all the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.