This image http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra... is not suppose to be in landscape/starscapes. If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky. Yet Pixoto allow this image to compete against images that will never win as this is NOT REAL.
Posted 5 years ago
Jasenka, Official Rep
:) ... milky way over sunny beach or whatever it is http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra....
Dawn ... i don't mind people use editing skills, its still part of the photography. There is no perfect image straight from the camera, it always require some post processing, some people over do it but that doesn't bother me. What is bothering me that people present image as something that is not and it gets acknowledged by moderators of photography website. I mean one thing is to run a website for image uploads but if there are set of "rules" to make competitions fair then there is need for knowledge about photography to manage such website. So why some rules are broken and other not, it's mystery to me. I also understand that is impossible to look at every image but because this image is on #1 position overall it caught my eye. Why doesn't caught eye of moderators and why community need to report and complain about obvious issues. Its not hard to monitor first 10 images in every category.
Dawn ... i don't mind people use editing skills, its still part of the photography. There is no perfect image straight from the camera, it always require some post processing, some people over do it but that doesn't bother me. What is bothering me that people present image as something that is not and it gets acknowledged by moderators of photography website. I mean one thing is to run a website for image uploads but if there are set of "rules" to make competitions fair then there is need for knowledge about photography to manage such website. So why some rules are broken and other not, it's mystery to me. I also understand that is impossible to look at every image but because this image is on #1 position overall it caught my eye. Why doesn't caught eye of moderators and why community need to report and complain about obvious issues. Its not hard to monitor first 10 images in every category.
But where does the line get drawn?
Dawn, to me that's the beauty of it -- where you draw your line may not be where I draw my line. Art is subjective and, well, it should be! What I may think is over-processed, someone else may think is eye-popping and gorgeous. What I think is a distracting crooked horizon may be a deliberate artistic choice by another photographer. Personally, I am more bothered by the out-of-focus and over-exposed images than by those who edit but do it with a heavy hand.
What I was trying to say is at what point of editing does it stop being considered a photograph and become a digital image ;-)
It's been the same since photography began, only difference is they used to do it in a dark room, now it's done on a computer, progress.
Trevor has some really great images, why not drop him a line and ask him how he captures the sunset and stars.
It may be that he takes a few shots and the blends the shots into a single image. Normally when you take a shot of more than 30 seconds you will see the stars begin to trail. A way round this is to use a device that moves the camera minute amounts to track the stars across the sky. The DIY version is called a Barn door tracker. Other more expensive options are Astrotrac, iOptron Skytracker, Vixen Polarie.
Some togs use a torch to light the foreground or he may have taken an earlier shot and blended the image together. All of these options are valid for astrophotography and takes skill to produce great images.
It may be that he takes a few shots and the blends the shots into a single image. Normally when you take a shot of more than 30 seconds you will see the stars begin to trail. A way round this is to use a device that moves the camera minute amounts to track the stars across the sky. The DIY version is called a Barn door tracker. Other more expensive options are Astrotrac, iOptron Skytracker, Vixen Polarie.
Some togs use a torch to light the foreground or he may have taken an earlier shot and blended the image together. All of these options are valid for astrophotography and takes skill to produce great images.
Also - his location will make a huge difference to what he is able to capture, no?
Oh you're too kind to the guy this time Bill...I thought you gonna whine because it's in the f**** wrong category. C'mon call him a cheat Bill! LOL...Or did you lost your crusade Bill?
Bill ... are you for real? Digital art for me does not mean that he needs to paint stars with brush in PS, it means that image is not presenting the real life scenario.
Dawn ... it does matter where you live to capture Milky Way ... people go so far from any source of light ... into pitch darkness to capture that. And yet we have Milky Way over sunny beach. Is that real?
Dawn ... it does matter where you live to capture Milky Way ... people go so far from any source of light ... into pitch darkness to capture that. And yet we have Milky Way over sunny beach. Is that real?
And Bill ... i am not interested how he composite final image and how he captures stars and sky, its completely irrelevant to me to know that.
Nikola
If you think it should go into Digital Art then report the image to Pixoto.
Read what i have said how he may have composed the image, its just another valid explanation, nothing was mentioned about painting the stars with a brush in PS. Nothing was mentioned about what category the image should be placed in.
Garces.....Your comments as usual are non-informative and are of little interest.
If you think it should go into Digital Art then report the image to Pixoto.
Read what i have said how he may have composed the image, its just another valid explanation, nothing was mentioned about painting the stars with a brush in PS. Nothing was mentioned about what category the image should be placed in.
Garces.....Your comments as usual are non-informative and are of little interest.
Yeah I know, your interest is only on the lilies and roses...lol
Report the images Bill, Pixoto seems take actions if you're the one reporting.
Bill, i did report it but as usual nothing happens. I know you have not mentioned painting in PS but i said that because digital art does not mean only using brushes and other graphic techniques on top of photograph. Even if all images are photographs taken with camera at various exposures and different times of day or year ... you can't compose image from original photographs that looks unnatural and place it in category for "processed" original photographs. If is not natural it has to go to digital art, that's all i am saying. It is allowed to compose image from other images (of yours) but you have to keep it real.
Imagine this scenario: if you have equipment to photograph planets and stars do you think will be ok to compose that planet instead of moon in the background, above cityscape, and submit it as normal image in landscapes/skylines. Final image is composed from two photographs but is it real? Where does it belong?
Imagine this scenario: if you have equipment to photograph planets and stars do you think will be ok to compose that planet instead of moon in the background, above cityscape, and submit it as normal image in landscapes/skylines. Final image is composed from two photographs but is it real? Where does it belong?
What can you say Bill? Are you eating your words again against people you often call "cheats"?
Nikola
Trevor Pottelburg is an internationally renowned photographer and has work published in several international landscape magazines. I would be very reluctant to cast doubt on the method Trevor has stated in some of these images
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
He clearly states "The light source for the beach and weathered pillars is coming from a nearby cottage"
What i stated in my previous post is a method of how some these images may or may not have been put together. Send Trevor a Facebook message i'm sure he will get back to you.
Trevor Pottelburg is an internationally renowned photographer and has work published in several international landscape magazines. I would be very reluctant to cast doubt on the method Trevor has stated in some of these images
http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
He clearly states "The light source for the beach and weathered pillars is coming from a nearby cottage"
What i stated in my previous post is a method of how some these images may or may not have been put together. Send Trevor a Facebook message i'm sure he will get back to you.
The issue Bill is not on how he shot/made the image. It's where he put (category) those images. And by your standard, it's "cheating".
Ok Bill, we are misunderstanding each other. I don't have doubt that Trevor captured all composites by himself but final results are not real. As i previously said, people travel far away and at certain times of year depending on hemisphere to capture Milky Way, for instance. So i don't want to bother Trevor to ask him if he captured these images, i am sure he did but how he put them together it can't be seen anywhere on this Earth.
You are photographer, look at this picture ... i can tell you there is no way that light from nearby cottage travel so far, again its impossible. we are not talking few meters here, its kilometres. Look at mountains in horizon, they are so bright. If those mountains are so bright there is no way that Milky Way would be so visible. Anyway, its my opinion and if Pixoto thinks its OK then who am i to argue here?!
You are photographer, look at this picture ... i can tell you there is no way that light from nearby cottage travel so far, again its impossible. we are not talking few meters here, its kilometres. Look at mountains in horizon, they are so bright. If those mountains are so bright there is no way that Milky Way would be so visible. Anyway, its my opinion and if Pixoto thinks its OK then who am i to argue here?!
Garces.....please stop butting in where you have no positive contribution to the post.
The original post from Nikola is about how he made the image.
"If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
Nikola believes the image is not real and as such should be in Digital Art. As Nikola has stated he has reported this image/
I gave a possible method of how Trevor may have composed these images, i have not commented on what category the images should entered.
Cheating is someone that posts duplicates, rotates the images and then flips the image in order to deceive.
The original post from Nikola is about how he made the image.
"If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
Nikola believes the image is not real and as such should be in Digital Art. As Nikola has stated he has reported this image/
I gave a possible method of how Trevor may have composed these images, i have not commented on what category the images should entered.
Cheating is someone that posts duplicates, rotates the images and then flips the image in order to deceive.
Nikola
I respect your views and your right to report the images, i am just giving a possible explanation of how he may have composed the images in your original post.
I respect your views and your right to report the images, i am just giving a possible explanation of how he may have composed the images in your original post.
Bill, i am not entirely agree with you what is considered cheating or not. I mean duplicates and using someone else images is obvious but i also consider cheating if you use something in your advantage over other players. For instance i think this is not real landscape image and it has advantage over others because it looks unusual, not seen before, i mean come on ... when have you seen such image in front of your eyes in real life? That's what people like to see, dream scenes, completely unknown ... yet its not real and has advantage over ordinary great looking sunset. :)
Thanks Bill, i also respect your input but it simply does not work for me, sorry. And in fact i agree with you there are complex techniques to capture "impossible" but those (im)possible elements can't be put in same basket and to say: This is what i saw with my own eyes and i captured it for you with my special techniques.
Jasenka, Official Rep
Hi all, I got clarification that photo is fine in Landscape category.
Jasenka, great, good to know what can be categorised as landscape.
I personally expected this decision. The decision is timely and it's a no surprise to me. As I have mentioned before, all decisions made here are on a case to case basis, depending what image has been reported to and who is reporting. For one, Trevor is a renowned tog. Pixoto will lose more than Trevor if he decides to pull out his images. so why rock the boat? It is how it is, we have to live with this folks!
Look at this thread from last week, no action is taken yet. Maybe we just forget the issue.
http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
Look at this thread from last week, no action is taken yet. Maybe we just forget the issue.
http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
Jasenka ... would you kindly ask how they come to that decision? I want to know and i need to know. I expect full explanation why this image appears "real" and why is not considered as digital art. Thank you
Nikola, I already did mention how they possibly come up with the decision. Unless they want to elaborate more and then eat their words again later. :)
:) Garces, most probably you are right but i asked anyway.
Jasenka, Official Rep
Nikola, this image has the appearance of being HDR which we allow in all categories.
I hope this helps.
I hope this helps.
Terry
If you were going to take an image where the foreground and background has different exposure levels and parts of the scene is moving how would you try to achieve an image that your eye sees. Your eyes have millions of years evolution and is able to adjust for this correctly. The digital camera however is only a few decades old and has limited capabilities. If you expose for one part of the image then another part of the image will be either over/underexposed, what Trevor has done is to try and recreate what his eyes saw at the time.
Its not new and nearly every landscape has used this technique.
If you were going to take an image where the foreground and background has different exposure levels and parts of the scene is moving how would you try to achieve an image that your eye sees. Your eyes have millions of years evolution and is able to adjust for this correctly. The digital camera however is only a few decades old and has limited capabilities. If you expose for one part of the image then another part of the image will be either over/underexposed, what Trevor has done is to try and recreate what his eyes saw at the time.
Its not new and nearly every landscape has used this technique.
so its a composite of various images?
Just 2 taken a few seconds apart
Thank you
Nikola its pretty simple actually!
Digital Art – This includes photo montages, fantasy scenes, constructed landscapes, artificial scenes and any photo compilation that is surreal or unreal. If it isn’t even trying to look real – put it here. IMPORTANT: all components must be your creations. NO STOCK PHOTOS.
Digital Art – This includes photo montages, fantasy scenes, constructed landscapes, artificial scenes and any photo compilation that is surreal or unreal. If it isn’t even trying to look real – put it here. IMPORTANT: all components must be your creations. NO STOCK PHOTOS.
In addition
Photography Photoshop/Post Processing Rules
In an effort to find the best, and most striking imagery, extensive use of Photoshop or other post processing techniques is allowed in all categories. However images that look like “digital art” rather than photography should be categorized as such.
Also since you posted this if you look at the image you posted it says right on it that it was a setting moon, and that the Main shot( suggesting it is a multiple shot composition) was taken at the listed settings.
Hope this helps
Photography Photoshop/Post Processing Rules
In an effort to find the best, and most striking imagery, extensive use of Photoshop or other post processing techniques is allowed in all categories. However images that look like “digital art” rather than photography should be categorized as such.
Also since you posted this if you look at the image you posted it says right on it that it was a setting moon, and that the Main shot( suggesting it is a multiple shot composition) was taken at the listed settings.
Hope this helps
Thanks Martin, i don't have problem with using any technique or using as many images you need to capture scene that your eyes see. Since camera function completely differently than human eyes photographers have to compose scene from multiple images, various exposures etc. After long exposure camera even reveal much more than our eyes can see in darkness because there is colour to everything just not as visible because our eyes adjust to overall ambient light. So all this is not unknown to me. My argument was - is this scenery realistic or not. If Trevor truly captured what he saw that night then as i said previously its great image and thanks to him showing to the world.
But ... if this picture is taken in Ontario, on 6th of June 2014 (EXIF) moon is illuminated 60% and is at almost 45 degree angle. Would be much higher than in picture and it would be half visible. Also other parts in scene like illumination of the sky from moon is a lot more than it usually is, even super moon doesn't spread so much light. Sky gradient from orange to blue to black and so on.
Still for me this is unbelievable image to be seen as it is presented and i categorise it as fantasy.
Anyway, I don't have intention to argue with this further, everyone believes what they want and i respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But ... if this picture is taken in Ontario, on 6th of June 2014 (EXIF) moon is illuminated 60% and is at almost 45 degree angle. Would be much higher than in picture and it would be half visible. Also other parts in scene like illumination of the sky from moon is a lot more than it usually is, even super moon doesn't spread so much light. Sky gradient from orange to blue to black and so on.
Still for me this is unbelievable image to be seen as it is presented and i categorise it as fantasy.
Anyway, I don't have intention to argue with this further, everyone believes what they want and i respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Nickola
You should read your first post.
" If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky. Yet Pixoto allow this image to compete against images that will never win as this is NOT REAL"
This is Trevor's interpretation of the scene, and the accusations made unjustified.
The foreground being shot with long exposure of 251 sec and the stars shot at 6 sec. The 2 images were then blended together to give his view of the scene.
He gives a time of 02:30 which pretty accurate for moonset on that day and region, i am not about to start questioning him on the exact time of the shot.
You should read your first post.
" If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky. Yet Pixoto allow this image to compete against images that will never win as this is NOT REAL"
This is Trevor's interpretation of the scene, and the accusations made unjustified.
The foreground being shot with long exposure of 251 sec and the stars shot at 6 sec. The 2 images were then blended together to give his view of the scene.
He gives a time of 02:30 which pretty accurate for moonset on that day and region, i am not about to start questioning him on the exact time of the shot.
Your deflection of the issue is like as gray as your mind. The issue is not on how he interprets his image, how he did it, what technique. The issue is, is the image look like real or fantasy? If so, will it fit in a landscape or digital art category based on Pixoto's definitions. And Pixoto said yes, and others disagreed. I don't know if you understand what you're reading here or you simply wouldn't like to see the point raised because of your own biases.
If it were lilies, would you even bother try to explain how they interpret the lilies, how they did it, why it looks unreal, why too much waterdrops, why the background is too blur, etc. etc.?
If you're trying to prove a point, make sure you're too consistent and don't blink an eye. Look on the issue not on personalities because you will just look fool if your will be contradicting what you've been fighting for in this site for a long time.
Have you not whining for wrong category since time immemorial?
http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
If you're trying to prove a point, make sure you're too consistent and don't blink an eye. Look on the issue not on personalities because you will just look fool if your will be contradicting what you've been fighting for in this site for a long time.
Have you not whining for wrong category since time immemorial?
http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
Garces
As usual you have nothing to add to the post other than that constant irritable whine about the Pixoto removal of your similars and duplicates.
This post is beyond your comprehension of photography, or indeed have the understanding to be able to decipher the original wording of the post.
I have pasted it here but i feel that is a waste of time
" If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
So let me try to decipher this all for you in simple steps.
1. it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure,
Answer: 151 second exposure was for the foreground,
2. no trailing stars, no blur clouds et
Answer: a second 6 second exposure was for the stars.
3. it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
Answer: It is not a sunset it is a moonset
4. Nicola statement "its not real"
Answer: Nicola has every right to report the image and i respect that right. However only Nikola knows if he based his report on not fully recognizing the initial EXIF data, or on the fact that he believed the image not to be real from his own personal perspective.
Don't waste your time here, go create another post of your own and spend more time whining on about Pixoto's justification in removing your similars/duplicate/rotations and flips.
As usual you have nothing to add to the post other than that constant irritable whine about the Pixoto removal of your similars and duplicates.
This post is beyond your comprehension of photography, or indeed have the understanding to be able to decipher the original wording of the post.
I have pasted it here but i feel that is a waste of time
" If you look at EXIF data, it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure, no trailing stars, no blur clouds etc. Even if you don't look at EXIF it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
So let me try to decipher this all for you in simple steps.
1. it is impossible to have such result during 151sec exposure,
Answer: 151 second exposure was for the foreground,
2. no trailing stars, no blur clouds et
Answer: a second 6 second exposure was for the stars.
3. it is impossible to see stars during sunset because there is way to much light in the sky"
Answer: It is not a sunset it is a moonset
4. Nicola statement "its not real"
Answer: Nicola has every right to report the image and i respect that right. However only Nikola knows if he based his report on not fully recognizing the initial EXIF data, or on the fact that he believed the image not to be real from his own personal perspective.
Don't waste your time here, go create another post of your own and spend more time whining on about Pixoto's justification in removing your similars/duplicate/rotations and flips.