Great Moments
The Cathedral, Mount Buffalo
feat. guest appearance from 'Mr Dropinsky' who appeared at Grampians National Park.
Together, this image represents an amazing morning I had at Mt Buffalo as well as a light spectacle I saw a week earlier at the Pinnacle. I feel you ought to know that and you can judge whether or not this image is for you but I want to get it out there that I think much of the arguing going on about composites is just for arguments sake. Lets take a few examples.
- The 'fine art' police insisting on 500px categoring of images like this being in the 'fine art' instead of landscape category. Really? Last I recall, this type of image is a 'fine art landscape'. I'm sure the fine art category users won't be category griping about putting this sort of image into landscapes which perhaps says something about the mindset of such landscape photographers.
- "I did a perspective blend to make the image more true to my experience". BS. The truth is, perspective blending just brings out the best visual elements of a wide angle foreground (which is not real) and a longer lens perspective of the background which is more what we see true to the eye. Why can't we just have the freedom of admitting this instead of trying to justify XYZ process being more 'real'.
- " I manipulated the sky because ......" You might ask why I did it to this picture? It's simple, I already feel like I have a nice image from the Pinnacle with this sky and a nice foreground from this image as a selfie excluding the sky. I wondered what the two would look like together and here it is. I think it looks nice which is why I've put it online but I'm not even going to justify whether or not I think this is 'real' landscape photography or 'illustrative'. For me its illustrative but that's just my opinion.
Great Moments
The Cathedral, Mount Buffalo
feat. guest appearance from 'Mr Dropinsky' who appeared at Grampians National Park.
Together, this image represents an amazing morning I had at Mt Buffalo as well as a light spectacle I saw a week earlier at the Pinnacle. I feel you ought to know that and you can judge whether or not this image is for you but I want to get it out there that I think much of the arguing going on about composites is just for arguments sake. Lets take a few examples.
- The 'fine art' police insisting on 500px categoring of images like this being in the 'fine art' instead of landscape category. Really? Last I recall, this type of image is a 'fine art landscape'. I'm sure the fine art category users won't be category griping about putting this sort of image into landscapes which perhaps says something about the mindset of such landscape photographers.
- "I did a perspective blend to make the image more true to my experience". BS. The truth is, perspective blending just brings out the best visual elements of a wide angle foreground (which is not real) and a longer lens perspective of the background which is more what we see true to the eye. Why can't we just have the freedom of admitting this instead of trying to justify XYZ process being more 'real'.
- " I manipulated the sky because ......" You might ask why I did it to this picture? It's simple, I already feel like I have a nice image from the Pinnacle with this sky and a nice foreground from this image as a selfie excluding the sky. I wondered what the two would look like together and here it is. I think it looks nice which is why I've put it online but I'm not even going to justify whether or not I think this is 'real' landscape photography or 'illustrative'. For me its illustrative but that's just my opinion.