Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Posted By:escoba
Comments:

Old Comments:

2008-08-11 09:54:01
Moraine Lake, Alberta, Canada - not far from Lake Louise. A photo of this lake used to be on the back of the Canadian $20 bill.
2008-03-30 10:12:23
I don't think you're really reading what I'm saying. When did I say photographers meant to do anything BUT to create "an enhanced more appealing image"? Also, when did I say that photoshopping distracted from the "natural beauty" of the image? Anyway, obviously "heavily edited" is a very subjective term, and I am not going to even attempt to argue that photographs are generally "heavily edited", I'll just say that in my opinion, most people would be astounded by the change between the original and the final pictures. .... Also, I think you totally missed the point. This whole discussion started out because Schumi asked how someone could achieve such "incredible" colors. This had absolutely nothing to do with the aesthetic quality of the picture or the intention of the photographer/editor. This was about how realistic the picture is, and whether such vivid colors are possible in real life. I still contend that, however aesthetically pleasing the final picture may be, most professional pictures are edited to such extent that the colors are far more vivid than they ever were in real life. Many of them are even just completely fabricated, such as some of the "sunset" pictures in the forum I linked to (where the original sky was completely blue, but was orange in the final picture). Other pictures are "heavily edited" (IMO) in other ways. The point is that the aesthetic quality of the picture, what tone the photographer meant to create, the intention of the photographer, or any other such variables are irrelevant for my argument. I was solely arguing that one should realize that the picture they are looking at is likely to not be a literal portrayal of the physical world as it really is, and if you were to somehow go back in time and see the exact scene and compare it to the final picture, the final picture would look very different from the actual scene.
2008-03-29 18:56:33
hummm.. Please expand of what you believe to be photoshopped. The only thing one would possibly considered photoshopped is the water which has been explained in an above post.. It's silly how people come to the resolution an image has beein photoshopped because they can't believe it looks so good - commonly without any photomanipulating knowldge themselves. If you hadn't realised "photoshopping" or rather image manipulation exists to enhance an image. "Besides, the very act of editing the picture further distorts your memory of the original scene, all of which result in an extremely distorted image of something that never quite existed as portrayed in the picture" Quote unquote Utter bullcrap. "HIGLY" or rather "HIGHLY" distorted as you mention it is absolute nonsense. Sure it may apply to a lot of photographers but i would say the photographers aim would be to enhance, i repeat enhance what they believed to be the scene in situ looking through their own eyes. And from an opbservers point of view, an enhanced image is FAR more interesting than a 100% unedited image that could be lacking the scenes real colours (due to the actual colour). Im sure a photographer would know the difference between surreal and realistic and hence you would be able to observe that in the final picture. I could go on about how your distorted perception then sets up further nonsense statements and what that leads to, but I'll spare you. :) gotta love the irony.
2008-02-27 14:59:08
Thank you for the answers. :)
2008-02-27 13:03:29
I'm sure there's also quite a lot of photoshopping involved. Ever been to photography forums or whatever? Pretty much every single picture like this out there has been very heavily edited. They will attempt to justify this by saying that people should be aware of this fact, that they bring out the "natural" beauty that the camera takes away, or that you should see it as how other people perceive it. Of course, I highly doubt that any of those photographers ever edit the pictures in situ, therefore (as any psychologist will tell you), their memory of what the colors were or whatever are HIGLY distorted by the time they do edit the picture. Besides, the very act of editing the picture further distorts your memory of the original scene, all of which result in an extremely distorted image of something that never quite existed as portrayed in the picture. I could go on about how this distorted perception then sets up unachievable standards and what that leads to, but I'll spare you.
2008-02-27 08:13:07
That is from glacial silt. It makes the water turn a bluish green. it is common in the mountain lakes in the Canadian Rockies.
2008-02-27 04:43:44
It is Moraine Lake in Banff National Park Alberta Canada.
2008-02-27 03:20:06
What technic do people to take photos like this? It does not seem HDR. But the water is incredibly blue.
2008-02-27 03:02:52
Where is it?
2008-02-26 13:15:31
This is truly breathtaking. Reminds me of a really great fishing trip I went on in Montana.
2008-02-26 12:14:19
This is in my back yard. I know you didn't take this photo... This is an "other people's photo.