Thursday, January 10, 2008

Fulton County Sunrise

While sorting through some pictures from this summer in search of suitable pictures for a DVD jacket I came upon this sunrise photo which was taken on August 26, 2007. The camera was the Canon 10-D with 70-200mm F2.8 L IS at 70mm.


I don't remember exactly how I did it, but I added the fiery color in photoshop. It was sort of drab looking before I did that. Actually it would likely make a decent black and white also.

I hope to soon continue the narrative about the elk, but there has been too much going on lately to do serious writing.



26 comments:

dot said...

Nice shot. I'd like to see it in B&W also.

Paulie said...

Nice pic . . . I often wonder why people don't paint their pictures IF they have to doctor them in Photoshop tho.

RUTH said...

WOW! That's fabulous :o)

Ida said...

So BEAUTIFUL! :)

oldmanlincoln said...

You ended up with something that is very nice. Good job Willard.

mrsnesbitt said...

Haunting and serene.
Beautiful.

Kekiinani said...

What a beautiful sunrise!! I love how the trees create a frame. :) :)

Sandy Carlson said...

Beautifully done!

Kerri said...

Wow! This is sooooo beautiful! The frame of trees is FAB!

Thanks so much for your kind comments about my son's accident!

Happy Friday!

Willard said...

Paulie

The point is one doesn't have to doctor their photographs in photoshop, and they don't have to not doctor them in photoshop. That is what creativity and freedom of choice is all about.

It doesn't matter if you do it in photoshop, or with a filter on your lens, or with no manipulation whatsoever. It can be challenging to see what one can do with a less than ideal picture or even an excellent one by tweaking this or that. The only exception would be shots of a legal nature or one where it was important to portray the exact reality.

This is a never ending argument. If I could paint a picture I would. As it is it felt good to manipulate that one in photoshop so I did and I'll do it again.

gaz said...

great shot - i love playing with photos and making them more powerful or unique!
when i take a picture i sometimes can see immediately just how i want that image to look, and you can't get that on a camera - it's about what you see in your mind. i see grain and contrast and boldness. sometimes i take a picture and i know that i'll just have to turn it into a mono image to get the full power.
it's great fun.

Marie said...

Stunning! Beautiful colors!

Your blog is very interresting!

Miss Patti said...

I really like it

Old Wom Tigley said...

Great Sky Watch here Willard... I always read others comments and find them of interest.. it great to see how other folk think. I'm entirely with you on this.. in fact I think Gaz as it spot on it's what he see, or what he'd want to see in his shot.
Great post, great reading.

Anna said...

Whatever you did, it turned out great!

Misty Dawn said...

Absolutely gorgeous!

Alexander said...

This is a very stunning photo. Well control of the lightings. A perfect shot.

Alexander
Alex's World! - http://www.kakinan.com/alex

DigitalShutterMania said...

wonderful colors. I like this photo.

Cheer,
DSM

Andrea said...

Wow, that is beautiful.

Sharon said...

This is great, I like the way you did it. I too would like to see the B&W. I keep thinking about getting photoshop, but would have to get someone to teach me how to work it.

Kahshe Cottager said...

I like this shot as it is! I wonder if you would lose the detail in the tree leaves if it became BW??

lv2scpbk said...

Love how you took this photo through the trees.

NYCindividual said...

Beautiful and mysterious. I'd like to be there to see the sun go down.

imac said...

I also go with Gaz too, such a grand shot too Willard.


Slowly recovering
and New Steam post up now.

J.W.Moore, Transient Light Photography said...

I fully support Willard's answer on the role of artistic freedom in the photographic process.

Unfortunately, the majority of the public believes two myths:

1) That the camera alone creates the image...and that they too could produce the same image if only they had an expensive camera.

My response has always been that it's not the camera and equipment that creates beautiful photographs--it's the skill, knowledge, expertise, and experience of the person using the camera.

The bottom line is that an artist uses whatever tools they have at their disposal to exercise their creativity and express their vision. In the case of a painter, it is not the brush, pigment, or media upon which the artwork is produced that establishes and determines the aesthetic qualities of the finished painting. Rather, it is the hand of the painter who sets those tools in motion.

2) The second myth I frequently hear is posed as the question, "Are those colors real, or did you Photoshop them?"

Of course they're real; and, Yes, I use Adobe Lightroom to convert my digital RAW file into a readable image and to restore the contrast, saturation, and tonality that a digital sensor does not provide. Then, I use Adobe Photoshop to emulate the same processes and techniques routinely used in the chemical darkroom: dodging, burning, contrast masking, tonality adjustments, etc. The difference is that the digital darkroom provides much greater control of those techniques than what the chemical darkroom did. It's also a much more enjoyable environment to work in: no noxious chemicals.

The truth is that all film and all digital sensors record color, tone, contrast and saturation differently. Indeed, some films are capable of recording colors, luminosity, and tonalities that we do not see at the scene. A photographer chooses a particular film that will allow them to express their artistic vision for a specific scene. The choice is based on the characteristics of that film; i.e., color warmth or coolness, high contrast or low, high saturation or low, high speed or low, film grain or relative absence of grain upon enlargement, etc. The wonder of digital sensors and the digital darkroom is that one can apply the same characteristics of a particular film via exposure, film speed, image development (RAW conversion), and image enhancement (post-processing in Photoshop), etc. on the fly without having to change rolls of film.

What the public never realizes or acknowledges is that the *.JPG images produced by their digicams have been processed by the camera's onboard microprocessor to adjust the color, tone, luminosity, saturation, etc. in exactly the same way that is done in the digital darkroom (why do you think you have different settings such as "sports", sunrise/sunset", "landscape", "people", etc. available on your digicam?). Further, when they take their roll film to the drugstore for processing they don't realize that the development and processing in the chemical darkroom is done to a standard that produced a "pleasing" result for a test group of people. Frankly, anybody can have their film pushed or pulled during development, or developed and processed with different techniques to get different visual results.

-----

The arguments and myths of the general public regarding what photography is or how it should be done are much like the Apple/PC or Canon/Nikon debates: non-starters. However, if you want to disagree with or discuss my statements above, critique or comment on my photography, learn or discuss what photography is really all about, or whatever...I would be happy to reply. Send your email to jwmoore@transient-light.com.

-----

BTW, Willard has some great wildlife and nature photographs that I would be proud to call my own!

Andrée said...

I'm going to audit a class on digital photography this semester; I don't know, but i sure hope they teach us the basics of PS and/or Elements (which is what I have). This is wonderful, I enjoy seeing it.