I wrote a new definition in the glossary of my blog and re-used this old image from 2012. There was of course a reason for this new insight. Read the new definition and find out what its all about.
Photographer, writer, teacher :: Live honestly. Progress through knowledge. Achieve by teaching. Communicate in writing. Speak in pictures. Every day, improve the world a little...
A lovely scene of the water wheel and mill! Interesting take on composite. So, unless it's SOOC - it's basically a composite then. I usually thought layers for a composite then flattened for the final result.
@will_wooderson - Not occupied, no. It is run by a local historical society. They make flour there three days a year.
Find out more about Pann Mill (Wycombe Rye) at: https://www.pannmill.org.uk/
@marlboromaam - no, not really. If you read the article you will see that the sky is not the original and in this version the duck is also put in as a composite element. Layers are a general purpose tool. Not just for compositing. The composite origin is about the introduction of additional photo-elements (sky and duck in this case). Actually there were 12 layers in the edits for this image.
@netkonnexion Interesting! That's a whole lot of layers. I've often wanted to change a white sky to blue, but too much for my under-skilled abilities with Photoshop.
@marlboromaam There are a number of techniques for swapping out sky. It really depends on what is in the scene in order to choose the best method. This one uses a high contrast technique to turn the trees into silhouettes then you create a mask which matches every branch. It does take a lot of steps. There are other ways to do it - and some shots are a lot easier than this one for exchanging sky. Still, it can be fun - but terribly time consuming!
@lesip Ah ha! That is why I put it there. It really lifts a dark spot in the image. Even my wife agrees and she normally hates me doing composites! LOL.
@susiemc - Interesting. That raises all sorts of questions.
Can you categorically say that ANY image from a camera is real? There are at least 10 intervention points in the formation of every shot that distort 'reality'. And, that is before the manufacturer's software imposes its algorithm to change the shot you have taken and make a file from it. That algorithm does all sorts of things to the original data. It makes edits you can only guess at but have agreed to by sanction (by owning the camera). But you do not control them. Given all that, what is the nature of the 'reality' of a photograph?
The point is that no image is 'real'. Photography is all about the manipulation of light. Even SOOC is only that, SOOC. It is not reality! The only thing that really matters in the outcome of a photograph is how the viewer feels about it, what they experience from seeing the image.
Composites are an art form. I enjoy my art and others enjoy my works. That is a pleasing thing, a good thing. I don't feel any shame about the art I make.
Good comment. Thank you.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
@netkonnexion I get your point Net and I hope I didn’t offend you. Sorry if I did. I guess photography means different things to different people and I accept that I have a very simple view of it. I just like taking pictures which document and represent my daily life so for me it’s important that I don’t change the pictures too much. Sorry again if I caused offence.
@susiemc - Gosh! No offense. It is actually an interesting point. I have encountered this argument many times. Often it stems from people thinking that composites are 'cheating' or 'not really photography'. Both cases are questionable. Working with composites, like editing, colour adjustment, and cropping, is just another form of working toward a desired outcome for your image. As you can see, the image above was actually taken in 2012. It has taken me all this time to get comfortable with it. I think it now shows what I want the viewer to see.
Composites are just another part of 'doing photography'. They are not right or wrong, just another technique.
By the way, your view of photography is just as legitimate as mine. Make no apologies for what you enjoy. Just go ahead and enjoy what you do. Yeeha!
It's fascinating how much difference the addition of even the smallest element can make to a composition. Your incomer duck really pulls everything together. Lovely light in this, I especially like the way it's highlighting the bit of Cotoneaster? in the foreground
Find out more about Pann Mill (Wycombe Rye) at: https://www.pannmill.org.uk/
Ian
Can you categorically say that ANY image from a camera is real? There are at least 10 intervention points in the formation of every shot that distort 'reality'. And, that is before the manufacturer's software imposes its algorithm to change the shot you have taken and make a file from it. That algorithm does all sorts of things to the original data. It makes edits you can only guess at but have agreed to by sanction (by owning the camera). But you do not control them. Given all that, what is the nature of the 'reality' of a photograph?
The point is that no image is 'real'. Photography is all about the manipulation of light. Even SOOC is only that, SOOC. It is not reality! The only thing that really matters in the outcome of a photograph is how the viewer feels about it, what they experience from seeing the image.
Composites are an art form. I enjoy my art and others enjoy my works. That is a pleasing thing, a good thing. I don't feel any shame about the art I make.
Good comment. Thank you.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Composites are just another part of 'doing photography'. They are not right or wrong, just another technique.
By the way, your view of photography is just as legitimate as mine. Make no apologies for what you enjoy. Just go ahead and enjoy what you do. Yeeha!
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!