False Rainbow

PhotoDavid78 · August 5, 2009

I created this false rainbow following a tutorial. Comments and Critiques please.

System · August 5, 2009

LOVE IT!

theNOIZ · August 5, 2009

Wow, that looks great.

The only way I would know that it was fake is 1) you told me, 2) when rainbows appear, you expect to see a surge of light somewhere. For example, I would expect to see a bit more sunlight on the front of the monument for a rainbow to appear. However, even that can be done in PS. Good job, thanks for sharing.

pathfinder · August 5, 2009

dtw78 wrote:

I created this false rainbow following a tutorial. Comments and Critiques please.

Very cool.

The link to the tutorial is...............please.

PhotoDavid78 · August 5, 2009

The link is...
http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/rainbow/

I made some adjustments of my own based on my own personal preferences and size of the photo.

pathfinder · August 5, 2009

Very nice tutorial. I like that one a lot!!

I will add it to my bookmarks and sooner or later, find a suitable image for it!

Richard · August 5, 2009

pathfinder wrote:

Very nice tutorial. I like that one a lot!!

I will add it to my bookmarks and sooner or later, find a suitable image for it!

. From time to time I thought about trying something like that, but I never knew that that the rainbow gradient was built-in. Nice to know. Of course, I'll never look at rainbow shots the same way again

.

pathfinder · August 5, 2009

So true, Richard!:D

AFBlue · August 7, 2009

Richard wrote:

. Of course, I'll never look at rainbow shots the same way again .

SOAP BOX MODE ON - This sort of thing crosses the line. Counterfeit (seems like the right word to me) "photos" like the one shown in the tutorial cause problems for photographers displaying real nature/landscape images. At the very least, this sort thing should be marked as not showing what the image-maker saw at the time the image was recorded.
We have several REAL rainbow photographs that we include in our displays and the majority of people will ask, "Is it real or is it Photoshop?"
Play artist all you want, just be honest. Label it as some sort of art, not as a representation of what the image-maker (can't bring myself to use the term photographer) saw. SOAP BOX MODE OFF
(You wouldn't suspect I have strong feelings on the subject, would you?)

PhotoDavid78 · August 7, 2009

AFBlue wrote:

SOAP BOX MODE ON - This sort of thing crosses the line. Counterfeit (seems like the right word to me) "photos" like the one shown in the tutorial cause problems for photographers displaying real nature/landscape images. At the very least, this sort thing should be marked as not showing what the image-maker saw at the time the image was recorded.
We have several REAL rainbow photographs that we include in our displays and the majority of people will ask, "Is it real or is it Photoshop?"
Play artist all you want, just be honest. Label it as some sort of art, not as a representation of what the image-maker (can't bring myself to use the term photographer) saw. SOAP BOX MODE OFF
(You wouldn't suspect I have strong feelings on the subject, would you?)

I posted this photo in the finnishing school forum and titled it false rainbow. I wrote that I created it using a tutorial so I don't see where you can say that this was false representation. I can see your point if I posted this in landscapes and tried to pass it off as real, but I didn't. Following these tutorials helps perfect ones photshop skills for other uses and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Just curious, Is airbrushing a pimple off a models face not a real photograph?

AFBlue · August 7, 2009

dtw78 wrote:

I posted this photo in the finnishing school forum and titled it false rainbow. I wrote that I created it using a tutorial so I don't see where you can say that this was false representation. I can see your point if I posted this in landscapes and tried to pass it off as real, but I didn't. Following these tutorials helps perfect ones photshop skills for other uses and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Just curious, Is airbrushing a pimple off a models face not a real photograph?

My "soap box" remarks were NOT directed at you. You were completely honest in your labeling & description of what you posted. My observations were more philosophical.
Where the line is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" post-processing is a matter of personal opinion and values, but I believe we can probably agree that removing a pimple is not quite the same as adding major elements to an image that radical alter the reality of the scene. And, unfortunately, there are photographs that have been (and are) being passed off as reflecting what the image-maker saw when they are not.
Please be assured that I did not suggest you have done that with your posting here or at any other time.

PhotoDavid78 · August 7, 2009

AFBlue wrote:

My "soap box" remarks were NOT directed at you. You were completely honest in your labeling & description of what you posted. My observations were more philosophical.
Where the line is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" post-processing is a matter of personal opinion and values, but I believe we can probably agree that removing a pimple is not quite the same as adding major elements to an image that radical alter the reality of the scene. And, unfortunately, there are photographs that have been (and are) being passed off as reflecting what the image-maker saw when they are not.
Please be assured that I did not suggest you have done that with your posting here or at any other time.

I totally see your point, however, as more and more technology is developed the more and more things like this are going to happen. It wasn't to long ago when photographers were saying that digital wasn't "real" photography and that only film could be considered "real." Television stations and movies use vitual sets all the time yet nobody thinks it is unethical. Also, print advertisments are completely doctored up. Objects are cut off the background and dropped onto completely different backgrounds. It is just part of the digital world. Photoshop can be used as a darkroom tool or as a tool used to create art or graphics. If the viewer looks at the image and loves it, then why not? To me, photography is an art so there really isn't an 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' way of doing things as long as it is honest and you put your heart into it.

AFBlue · August 8, 2009

I would hope we are all using standards of honest representation far above the entertainment media. And I think the public knows that TV entertainment programs, movies, and most ad images don't represent reality.

The key point for photographers is:

If a person likes an image and buys it knowing that the scene is a product of the seller's imagination and computer skills, that is fine and good.

If a person likes an image and buys it under the false impression (based on the seller's representations) that it represents what the image-maker/seller saw when the scene was captured, that is wrong and a bad thing for photography and photographers.

If you have a different standard, that is your prerogative[FONT=&quot][/FONT] and we will simply have to agree to disagree and move on.

RalphAdam · August 10, 2009

AFBlue wrote:

I would hope we are all using standards of honest representation far above the entertainment media. And I think the public knows that TV entertainment programs, movies, and most ad images don't represent reality.

The key point for photographers is:

If a person likes an image and buys it knowing that the scene is a product of the seller's imagination and computer skills, that is fine and good.

If a person likes an image and buys it under the false impression (based on the seller's representations) that it represents what the image-maker/seller saw when the scene was captured, that is wrong and a bad thing for photography and photographers.

If you have a different standard, that is your prerogative and we will simply have to agree to disagree and move on.

What is real? Did Monet "accurately" represent what he saw, or did he make it "better"? Art is art, and, in my view, absent journalistic or forensic considerations, images should reflect the vision of the creator, not some "gee, wasn't I lucky to be there then" assertion.

PhotoDavid78 · August 10, 2009

RalphAdam wrote:

What is real? Did Monet "accurately" represent what he saw, or did he make it "better"? Art is art, and, in my view, absent journalistic or forensic considerations, images should reflect the vision of the creator, not some "gee, wasn't I lucky to be there then" assertion.

I totally agree and that is what I was trying to say in the first place. Maybe I didn't express myself well enough though.

AFBlue · August 12, 2009

RalphAdam wrote:

What is real? Did Monet "accurately" represent what he saw, or did he make it "better"? Art is art, and, in my view, absent journalistic or forensic considerations, images should reflect the vision of the creator, not some "gee, wasn't I lucky to be there then" assertion.

No problem. Those who want to "better nature" shouldn't tag themselves as mere photographers, but should proudly proclaim themselves to be digital artists and have at it.