Momentary Awe | Travel photography blog

It looks good, and I wholeheartedly agree, it was definitely worth shooting the moon separately. And while it’s not much of an issue I think I’d have been tempted to move it over to the right a bit, closer to the left-hand third, as I think it creates a more balanced composition.

Like the picture. The colors and composition work. As for moving the moon, I think it improves the picture. As long as you inform the viewer of the manipulation, I am fine with that. You are creating art, not a picture for a documentary.

Hmm. I was going to stay out of this, but here goes…

So then. Not content with artificially increasing the size of the Moon, now we’re proposing to move it as well because we’re not happy with where it is in the sky?

/cynic mode on

What next – add in a unicorn jumping over the top of it? Stick a thunderstorm in their somewhere with some dramatic lightning? A double rainbow perhaps?

/cynic mode off

It’s a nice bit of digital art, there’s no questioning that. But as a photograph, it’s a fake.

“Now, all of you who tried to photographed the moon alongside a city landscape will know that it’s a difficult thing to do as the moon will always look very small compared to everything else.”

Speaking as someone who is all too familiar with shooting the moon against city backdrops, I’m going to have to challenge that statement. 

The Moon looks small in the original for the same reason lots of other elements look small – because of the use of a wide angle lens. You’re representing a larger scene in a smaller area. Everything has to shrink. 

And everything will, or rather, should, shrink in proportion. The angular size of the moon, the buildings below it, all remain constant – regardless of which lens and camera we are looking at them through (and that includes the human eye and brain).

Go back to the same spot in a month’s time and look at the scene again. Look at the size of the moon compared to – for example – the building directly below it in the doctored shot (it’s our old friend Ubora Towers again). 

Then look at your “after” image and I guarantee you that you’ll regard it in exactly the same way as I do: the moon looks too big in it. 

Yes. I fully agree:

The moon can be extremely challenging to photograph – especially when we are trying to shoot it within the context of a larger scene. 

But if we’re going to simply look at our resulting photographs and go “hmm. I reckon that would look better if the moon was bigger. And in a different place. And a different phase. And maybe with the crescent rotated a bit. I’ll just composite one in.”, then why even bother with including it in the original shot at all?

“Great image I’ve just taken. But I reckon it would look even better with the moon in it!”

Just keep a stock set of photos of the moon on your hard drive, and drop them into a shot when you feel like it. 

Except – despite the fact that you’d end up with exactly the same result as you have, it wouldn’t be much of a challenge, would it?

In closing, and to stress the point I’m making, I’m going to link to a shot of mine of a full moon in Dubai:

http://dxbae.com/portfolio/content/IX0F2690_large.html

Now. From publicly accessible locations, that shot is fairly challenging. 

As a photographer – what would you find a more rewarding way of overcoming the challenges that shot presents:

Creating that image?

Or taking that photograph?

Hi Catalin -

Thanks for the considered response.

 I appreciate that this is an area that people will have different perspectives on (pun intended!), and it’s great that you were open and honest in explaining how you came up with the image, and additionally, that you’re happy to entertain  the discussion. 

The reason the moon – and it must be stressed, everything else – “looks small” is a combination of two factors. 

Firstly, the use of a wide angle lens. For reference, human vision is typically most comparable with about a 45mm lens on 36×24, although it’s not quite as simple as just thinking about fields of view. (Incidentally, regardless of the sensor size, this considered “normal” focal length is always equal to the length of the diagonal of the sensor.)

Secondly, the image we are now looking at is itself small, and taking up a very small angle of our field of vision (assuming most people will look at the image on their monitor, sat at a typical distance from it).  Print it large, hang it on a wall, and stand back from it so that it fills your vision, and you’ll then get a true representation of what you saw. 

But – and it’s a big but – the angular size of the moon in the sky is half a degree, and this will not get distorted by either the human eye/brain, nor the lens/camera combination that has been used in this instance (extreme wide-angle rectilinear lenses stretch objects towards the periphery of the image circle, but we don’t have to worry about that in this instance).

We do perceive the moon to be smaller when high in the sky because there is no context available to size it relative to other objects, but that’s a totally different scenario. In this example, the moon is close to the horizon and its size easily comparable in relation to the buildings directly below it.

I fully recognise that many – in fact I readily accept that it would probably be the vast majority of – people will consider the composite shot to be a “better” or “more pleasing” image. 

It simply cannot however be a true representation of what the scene looked like to the naked eye, firstly because the moon doesn’t change size in relation to other objects in view depending on what visioning system is being used, and secondly, because it’s been moved. 

It has to be said that there are few twilight or nighttime shots of cityscapes that wouldn’t be improved by compositing in a crescent moon – particularly in this region, given the cultural importance of the lunar cycles. 

A question to those who don’t have a problem with resizing and moving the moon in an image in order to improve the composition, or simply adding one in to make the image more appealing:

Should we not be bothering to wait for the correct time of month, nor get ourselves to the right physical location, to capture the moon in shot the way we want to, and just composite one in to where we want it on a photo?

I have to admit to being somewhat conflicted on this. On more than one occasion I’ve put a considerable amount of research and effort into getting to the precise location – I’m talking about a 10 square meter patch of land; at the right time – and by right time, I mean a window of opportunity for the photo of just a few seconds available out of an entire year , in order to get the moon shot that I wanted. 

Is it really worth the hassle? If the end result, and not how we got there, is all that matters; if it is acceptable to move – in the most literal sense – heaven and earth to get the image we want, why bother with all that effort?

Regards,

Gerald. 

Gerald, the funny thing is that I don’t necessarily disagree with you in some respects. Just like you I usually cringe at extra things added into an image just for the hell of it (particularly when people try to convince me that it wasn’t photoshopped).

But this post wasn’t about that. It was more about experimenting and trying something different. That’s why I made sure I mention this in the actual text of the post and not try to pass the image for something that is not. If you want to call it digital art instead of a photograph, I actually have no issue with that.

I also really appreciate what goes into getting a great image. I’ve returned many times to the same spot, just to get better light or a better reflection in a building or some clouds. But for me this image was a quick experiment and not something that I needed to put a year of location scouting into.

Like you said, regardless of the differences in opinion, it’s always interesting to have these discussions as the art of photography progresses. It’s also the perfect test for my new commenting system!

The notion of authenticity is an interesting one, but I think the extent to which it’s an issue depends on your reference point. If it’s the actuality of the scene before you – its inherent reality – (and this is always an issue for photojournalists) then I agree, cloning and/or moving objects within the scene will decrease its authenticity. If you’re trying to convey the perceived reality of a scene – how it felt to be there, the mood, and so on – then I think that the type of creative change that Catalin made here is a) perfectly acceptable, and b) can increase the authenticity in a way that’s simply not possible by presenting the image “as is”. In other words, the perception of reality and the intrinsic nature of reality are not the same thing, and I don’t see any reason why photography should be exclusively confined to one or the other. For me, both are equally valid.

I actually prefer the composition of the original shot although on the doctored one, the skyline has deeper contrast and you’ve removed some sort of lens aberration I think so the overall image looks better. p.s. Where’s that planet (Venus?) gone?

Might I add, really like the way you’ve integrated Disqus! Blends in perfectly with the site.

Derrick, thanks! It took a bit to manage to import all the existing comments into Disqus, but otherwise the integration with WordPress was fairly uneventful. I still have to adjust the mobile template though…

Kris, thanks!

Playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ and throwing in a couple more variables to this argument…

1. Commercial Reality
In a world where even the largest and most revered commercial image libraries trawl through social media photo sharing sites like Flickr looking for images to sell, making even your most average looking images as attractive as possible to potential photography buyers seems like perfectly good business sense. Even if that means the inclusion of a leaping unicorn. This obviously raises the argument of ‘photography as art’ vs ‘photography as commodity’. I’ll let you guys decide which side of that fence you prefer to sit.

2. Who draws the line?
Exactly where does the idea of ‘altering an image’ begin and end? Is it just photoshop you have an issue with Gerald? What about HDR (which can now be achieved ‘in-camera’)? What about artificial light? What about long exposures? What about tilt and shift lenses? All of these things change the way the final frame appears in comparison to what we actually saw through our eye at the time of pressing the shutter.

Gerald, I actually think that you picked the wrong person to start levelling accusations of faking anything. There are millions of photographers out there that shamelessly alter their images then swear blind that they haven’t touched a thing (or are far too aloof to caption or describe anything they do). Catalin very openly explains what he does to all his images and humbly requests feedback and opinions.

Hi James -

The reason I was able to engage with Catalin (someone who I have personally met, and whose work I have frequently lauded) was precisely because he was honest about the changes that he made to the original image(s). It does seem a rather odd that in one sentence you seemingly berate me for picking the wrong person to discuss this with, and in the very next, praise Catalin for requesting that very feedback.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear, but the “problem” that I have with this image is, quite simply, that the moon has been doubled in size (roughly – I’m not going to take the time to measure it precisely), and repositioned.

This compositing is totally different to pretty much every other area that you bring up, but for the sake of completeness, I’ll address them for you.

Altering an image begins at the moment you click the shutter, and it ends at the moment you publish it.

I don’t have an issue with photoshop. I use it myself, although sparingly, having been tutored in it by the best in the business (although I would certainly not claim to be very proficient in its use).

HDR can be used productively or abused destructively in exactly the same way as any other tool – be it software or hardware – available to photographers.

I don’t personally manipulate available light (be it artificial or natural) in 99.999% of my own images, but that’s simply down to personal preference. Of course it’s totally necessary for vast swathes of photography.

What about long exposures? I think this is a completely irrelevant question to ask – pretty much all exposure lengths will change the image compared to the way the human eye perceives it at the time. Personally, I happen to love them though.

Tilt and shift lenses? Absolutely essential for many, many images in order to more accurately represent the scene as viewed. One of the things I really appreciate about Catalin’s work (and this is a fine example) is that despite the fact that he doesn’t, to the best of my knowledge, actually have a tilt-shift/perspective control lens, he takes the time in post to correct the distortion of perspective that has been introduced into the image due to the framing that he has chosen.

In the end, who draws the line?

The photographer does.

As I’ve gone to pains to highlight in my earlier comments – I fully accept that many people would draw the line after the changes that have been made to this image. For me, the line is drawn before cutting, resizing, and pasting the moon in shot.

It is interesting to note that no-one has addressed the issue as to why even bother including the moon in the shot in the first place. If you want a moon in any of your images, just paste one in whenever and wherever you feel like it. To me that is no different to what has been done here.

Regards,

Gerald.