Signs of Autumn [Beware: Archnid inside!]

[Dierk Haasis]

This is a complementary thread to the various Autumn ones already in existance. To keep loading and scrolling to a minimum in the others, I opened a new one; and I wanted those with arachnophobia warned.

The title for both images is the same: Signs of Autumn. The pictures show what I saw this morning, but to get there I had to combine two different photos for each picture, one showing the moon in focus, the second focussed on the fat spider, which sat in her net dangling from the balkony of the flat above me. One thread of the net can still be seen in the vertically oriented image.

Now, to get a bit into some of the questions arising from the pictures ...


1. The question of reality.
Does photography show reality? Yes - up to a point. For most of us it should not be news that a photo does only show a slice of the world, that is, a reality crop. In this case it was technically impossible to capture in one photo* what I saw: a clear, sharp, big moon and a fat spider in her net. So I had to fake it.

2. The question of ethics.
Am I allowed to fake such a shot? Well, is a painter allowed to embellish a bunch of flowers by including other flowers? Even if my photo was meant as part of a news article I'd venture to say this is no ethical dilemma since I was technically unable to do the shot in-camera alone. This is what I saw, this is the situation as it presented itself.

3. The question of lenses.
Why didn't I just take another lens? Simple, no lens was able to get it. Originally I intended to take my 70-200 mm VR at longest focal length to give the spider some size, show the moon as large as it appeared to me, and put both on the same plane [not focal, only visual]. Unfortunately the lens did not allow me to put both in one shot, the angle wasn't right; and I would have had to go back farther only because the lens only allows up to 2.5 metres to an object.
Neither my 15-30 mm wide angle zoom nor my 50 mm prime cut it, both allowed the right angle and focus but changed perspective, making the spider really big and the moon a dust speck. The only lens giving me what I wanted [and saw] was the 105 mm macro. Since moon and arachnid were on different focal planes (rendering one sharp and the other a nearly invisible blob) I had to put two shots together.**

4. The question of software.
Which software is better? None. As should now be common knowledge I don't use ACR too much, preferring RAW Shooter, LightZone and Capture NX [where applicable] for RAW conversion and image optimisation. Photoshop is rarely used nowadays, only for composites and those specks easier cloned out with PS than LZ.
I opened all my RAW shots in PSCS2, just used the automatic defaults of ACR, layered two portrait and two landscape shots, used the history brush to reveal the spider in the horizontal version or the moon in the vertical picture. Then the resulting TIFF was handed over to LighZone for refinement of those areas I was too stupid to get close to right in PS (there's still some regions needing a bit of attention).

5. The question of significance.
And what's the fuss? All the talk about what camera, which computer system, software etc. to use is, well, not nonsensical but often wrong-minded. Neither camera nor lens, OS, RAW converter or image processor are ends in themselves*** - they are tools, the means to get to an end. We should always bear in mind that we have a vision we want to share, whatever the methods to achieve them.




*That's not quite correct, the D2x allows to combine shots in-camera with the result of one photo. I guess we all agree that this is exactly the same as if I combine two shots out of camera to get one photo. Showing all the more the technical and philosophical incompetence of many disputantes in 'what a photographer is allowed to do' discussions.
**This is an explanation of creative use of lenses. There's always a right one, the lens that is cried out loud for by the scene.
***Alright, for some they are. Let me just refer them to South Park's World of Warcraft episode from season 10.

 

[Mary Bull]

Dierk, I am absolutely in love with both images.

Arachnids are lovely, and you captured this one so well and put in the moon (well, represented the moon you had seen with your eyes) so beautifully.

Your notes to the pictures are important to me, also. I have read them, but I am now going to read everything you said here again more carefully, and take it to heart, for my own guidance.

Mary

 

[Don Cohen]

Interesting and fun image, Dierk, also leading in to a worthwhile discussion on the nature of photography itself.

In general, I agree with your philosophical positions, although I do think an image like this would need a note of clarification, especially if used in a news, rather than an artistic, context. But even in an artistic vein, I think you'd be asking for trouble without a note explaining how this image was created.

Also, even with the superb focusing ability of the human eye, in general we wouldn't see/experience this image in nature - if we are focusing on the moon, the spider would be quite out of focus, and vice-versa, if focused on the spider, the moon would not be resolved this clearly.

So my personal take on this is that a combined image like this requires some clarification of technique, and would be misleading if posted without one.

Your thoughts on this appreciated, as well as the perspectives of others who may hold different opinions.

Thanks for your provocative post!

 

[Bev Sampson]

Dierk, I am disappointed that I cannot view your photos. Two small red X appear instead. I turned pop-up blocker off and still nothing. I must have my firewall set incorrectly. my Fall color photos are still RAW. I will post a few later today or tomorrow.

Bev

 

[Mary Bull]

How high and clear the daytime moon!

Interesting and fun image, Dierk, also leading in to a worthwhile discussion on the nature of photography itself.

Indeed. And it's very thoughtful and easy to read.

Also, even with the superb focusing ability of the human eye, in general we wouldn't see/experience this image in nature - if we are focusing on the moon, the spider would be quite out of focus, and vice-versa, if focused on the spider, the moon would not be resolved this clearly.

I disagree with your analysis here, Don. Respectfully disagree. Because we may truly have different real-world experiences.

I have seen the daytime moon just this small and high coupled with many things I have been photographing against the sky with my G2 lately. I see it with the naked eye and am fully aware of its small white presence, while equally intent on the holly berry I want to be in the focal plane of the camera's take.

This is an exercise Asher assigned to me weeks ago: to show the berry against the blue sky and not against the brownish-red bricks of the house next door.

Now that's hard! But the other day I did get the moon--although the berry was still blurred. I thought because the wind blew the light branch at the last minute.

However, my memory is that I saw moon and berry equally sharp in my naked eye's vision. As opposed to what the camera showed me when I downloaded and converted the image on my computer screen. (I am shooting in RAW all the time, now.)

Your thoughts on this appreciated, as well as the perspectives of others who may hold different opinions.

1) I think that as art, the two pictures stand alone, with no need to explain how they are achieved.

2) I think that as a newspaper or magazine photo, they are equally acceptable with no explanation.

3) I think that in a documentary article, explanations would be welcome, as also in this forum they are welcome. But in no way do I experience them as "fake" or "false reporting" because my eye does see both an insect and the daytime moon in sharp delineation, unless the sun is making me see the insect in silhouette.

I haven't seen a spider lately, but I think the principle is the same.

Once, back in August, I brought the viewfinder to my eye to try to capture a monarch butterfly as it winged off a flower near my back door. But, it showed up only as a silhouette, the moon above it, so I didn't take the shot.

Mary

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Mary,

I disagree with your analysis here, Don. Respectfully disagree. Because we may truly have different real-world experiences.

I have seen the daytime moon just this small and high coupled with many things I have been photographing against the sky with my G2 lately. I see it with the naked eye and am fully aware of its small white presence, while equally intent on the holly berry I want to be in the focal plane of the camera's take.

I appreciate your comments, and will have to do a little more experimenting. So far when I focus (with my eye, that is) in the distance, near objects are still fairly blurred, and wouldn't appear as the image posted. When I focus up close, though, it's harder to say - I have reached the "presbyopic" age where I can't easily focus up close without reading glasses, and this may be effecting my observations. As I said, I'll need to investigate this a bit more before I commit to any position! You might end up being right on this issue.

2) I think that as a newspaper or magazine photo, they are equally acceptable with no explanation.

I would be interested in other opinions here, especially from those actively involved in photojournalism. My inclination still leads me to think that a composite image like this needs an asterisk or note of some kind, as the general expectation in this context would be that the image was essentially unaltered (other than the usual tweaks in color, tonality, sharpness, saturation, etc.). But I am certainly open to being corrected if this is not the case in this industry.

3) I think that in a documentary article, explanations would be welcome, as also in this forum they are welcome. But in no way do I experience them as "fake" or "false reporting" because my eye does see both an insect and the daytime moon in sharp delineation, unless the sun is making me see the insect in silhouette.

Just to clarify - I did not mean to say, not imply, that these images should be judged as "fake" or "false reporting." But because a composite image like this, in my opinion, contains edits beyond the usually accepted ones (itemized above), that a note of clarification would be needed. I think a typical observer would otherwise draw incorrect conclusions about the nature of the images.

Best,

 

[Mary Bull]

Hi Mary,
... I would be interested in other opinions here, especially from those actively involved in photojournalism. My inclination still leads me to think that a composite image like this needs an asterisk or note of some kind, as the general expectation in this context would be that the image was essentially unaltered (other than the usual tweaks in color, tonality, sharpness, saturation, etc.). But I am certainly open to being corrected if this is not the case in this industry.

Well, of course, I can speak only as the "end customer." These days, I take it for granted that photos have been tweaked a bit but that they represent the photographer's experience of the scene.

And I do think that this particular double-imaging technique does accurately represent the scene as Dierk saw it.

So I'll be interested if we can lure a pro or two here for their take on the question.

Just to clarify - I did not mean to say, not imply, that these images should be judged as "fake" or "false reporting." But because a composite image like this, in my opinion, contains edits beyond the usually accepted ones (itemized above), that a note of clarification would be needed. I think a typical observer would otherwise draw incorrect conclusions about the nature of the images.

I was struggling for words to mean what I was trying to express--that's why I used the language "fake" and "false reporting" in quotes. I didn't mean to imply that I was quoting or paraphrasing you, Don. Sorry about not writing with sufficient precision.

As to an asterisk with note, this is another place I'd like to hear from the actively working photojournalists. They know their audience/viewers/readers, and I'm only one "end-customer," as I said.

The whole field is in flux--TV is so fluid, that I sometimes think the old adage about statistics could be usefully reworked to "images don't lie, but image-makers figure."

The image is always true to itself. The content it points to may, however, not be accurate.

And, back to our "old eyes" question: different people do see the real-world scene before them differently.

I suffer from an uncorrectable depth-of-field deficiency. It's almost as if I have monocular vision. Everything beyond a few feet away from me flattens out to two dimensions.

Therefore, beyond a block, I don't know how far away from me an oncoming car is.

Makes me a very, very cautious driver!! < said with a grin >

Mary

 

[Dierk Haasis]

So far when I focus (with my eye, that is) in the distance, near objects are still fairly blurred, and wouldn't appear as the image posted.

That's because you try too hard. The moment we concentrate on one object our eye and brain focus on this. Normally our eyes are in constant movement around, taking in our environment, focussing on many points any second. The brain then processes these to the normal sharp-like image we have of the world.

This, BTW, makes images with strongly blurred backgrounds or foregrounds so effective, they are exactly as we never see the world unless we use auxiliary devices like photography.

Another feat our eye-brain succeeds in is very much like MPEG-video: taking in only changing aspects instead of constantly processing everything. There's a nice experiment involving a group of basketballers and a person in a gorilla costume - people cannot remember the gorilla when asked after having watched the basketball short [movie that is].

 

[Don Cohen]

Dierk - Well, as an Ophthalmologist in my non-photography time, I am certainly tuned in to the various vision and perception issues raised here, and agree that even on a physiologic basis, people to experience the world quite differently. And I was just reading about the "gorilla costume" experiment in a book yesterday afternoon!

Mary - too bad you're not a little closer - I could do an eye exam, and help get to the bottom of this! I have patients who have natural "monovision" - i.e. one eye is nearsighted, and the person reads with this eye, while the other is emmetropic, and uses it for distance. Their depth perception may be diminished because of this (though not necessarily so). But their brain may internally combine images from both eyes, to give an image just like the ones that Dierk presented!

Interesting image - interesting discussion!

 

[Ray West]

Am I missing something here, like the images? or is it somehow connected with Nicolas's dissappearing underscored link technique? Now you see it - now you don't...????

seem to be here now, thanks who/whatever.

 

[Mary Bull]

Mary - too bad you're not a little closer - I could do an eye exam, and help get to the bottom of this!

I wish. The last opthalmologist I saw (got my latest prescription from an optometrist, for a quick appointment) put it to me this way, when I explained what had been my experience since about age 28:
The problem isn't in the eye anatomy but in the brain processing.

He came to this conclusion, because I would get better depth-of-field from a new prescription. Then in a few weeks, overnight it would seem, something would flip a switch and I was back to the old "flat" appearance of anything more than a 100 feet or so, away.

So I decided to simply live with it, and I no longer tell the "general public" about it.

I rarely have a passenger with me, but the last one wanted to "back-seat drive" me and was very impatient at intersections where I had a stop sign and no right-of-way, the kind pf situation you have with some T-intersections. "Why didn't you go? You had plenty of time! Somebody behind you is likely to rear-end you if you keep sitting here like this. I know these Nashville drivers!" etc. < rueful smile >

Sometime during this past summer there was an article in The New Yorker magazine about people who, with two capable eyes, function with monocular or near-monocular vision. And a little parallax test, using one's forefinger and nose, was described. I tried to do it and apparently flunked it for objects only 10 feet from me, near the opposite wall.

Was rather fascinating.

Anyway, I have all these little coping mechanisms, and I haven't made a bad automobile wreck since the head-on collision that I caused at age 28.

And this is probably all neither here nor there, for the purposes of the general discussion of the thread.

But I've enjoyed telling a "real doctor" about it--one who I know will read me and not get tangled up in the idiosyncrasies of how I tell my tale. < she said happily >

I have patients who have natural "monovision" - i.e. one eye is nearsighted, and the person reads with this eye, while the other is emmetropic, and uses it for distance. Their depth perception may be diminished because of this (though not necessarily so). But their brain may internally combine images from both eyes, to give an image just like the ones that Dierk presented!

Well, of course, that's 2-D on my monitor screen.

Interesting image - interesting discussion!

Indeed so.

For myself, Dierk's two pictures are not only interesting but very beautiful. I like the view in both very, very much.

Mary