Cowgirl silhouette, regular or turbo?

zoomer

I don't normally do much photo manipulation, but this one was such a good candidate. I had this sunset and I had this cowgirl. Seemed like a natural match. Then I posted the real photo and got such a huge response to it I started second thinking the sunset version...but it is so dramatic.
To my eye the sunset version is overall more wow, and the normal version is more about the actual silhouette.
Anyway would love some opinions on the photos, preferences and why....please refrain from the should we manipulate or shouldn't we discussion. Thanks.

cab.in.boston

I agree on the WOW factor. That sky is beautiful, and I think the silhouette looks great against that background. The only nit I'd pick is the lower right corner looks a little off to me. I think the ground that is in pic #2 would look better all the way across the frame in the "doctored" version, rather than how you have it. It's hard for me to even tell what it is, it almost looks like smoldering ashes... Otherwise I think the silhouette with sunset background is gorgeous.

aj986s

I really like #2. #1, though a gorgeous sky, makes the image too busy for me. IMHO, #2 better emphasizes the silhouette.

l.k.madison

First one takes the cake for me.

And the beauty of Photoshop is to not be able to tell you used it. Had you not mentioned it, I would have never known the first one was a composite.

I've always wanted a silhouette of my husband playing his bagpipes against the sunset and had to go to the Grand Canyon to get it its one of my favorite shots of him, even down to the barely visible scruff on his face.

Has the cowgirl seen this yet? I'm sure she'd love a copy!

Tracker

I like both for different reasons--can't really choose one over the other. I would take a fine tooth comb to the second one and maybe clean up the edge of the silhouette--remove a couple of the stray grass shoots and other things around the edge of the cowgirl herself.

zoomer

Thanks everyone. Sounds like the same thoughts I have been having.
I did go back and crop that little section of field and trees in the bottom corner off from the right, agreed.
Agree the two shots have completely different feels to them.
Yes she has seen them both, she can't decide which one she prefers either .
No stray grass shoots, there is some hair, rope fibers and some strands from her cutoffs. Probably seeing the strands from her cutoffs I imagine.

Nikolai

Nice work!

On #1 I would include more sky, make smaller figure and avoid a dead center composition.

On #2 I would reposition the subject EXACTLY on the top of the little ridge to salvage the missing couple inches of her feet and thus elongate her legs.

HTH
Nikolai

Sam

I love the color and pop of #1. (#2 ain't all that bad ether. )

Sam

WillCAD

I love 'em both.

The original is a terrific example of the sillhouette art, and you're right, it's more about the girl than the background. The composite has the girl AND the wow factor of that magnificent sunset (though I agree with Cab that the lower right corner needed to come out).

I'm in the crowd with l.k. - I'd never have known it was a composite if you hadn't said so. Well-done Photochopping!

zoomer

I think I am going with the Sunset one for general use.

So now...going back to the issue of should we or shouldn't we....my own feeling is that as long as photos are not being entered into a competition of any sort which restricts the use of composite photos, we are creating art and are free to create our own vision.

I KNOW there is a lot more of going on than people ever admit...people who are really good at it...there is really no way to tell.
A lot of the landscapes I see are just to perfect, really who gets to spend months out there just waiting for the perfect conditions in the perfect light. Especially now with the use of HDR it is really opening up the boundaries of what manipulation is OK and what isn't.
Last year I got second place in a nature photography competition that did not allow any more than basic editing being done to the photos. The first place photo was a stitch of 3 photos, basic editing hmmmmmm......

cab.in.boston

zoomer wrote: »

So now...going back to the issue of should we or shouldn't we....my own feeling is that as long as photos are not being entered into a competition of any sort which restricts the use of composite photos, we are creating art and are free to create our own vision.

I agree with you. Photography is different than painting or drawing, obviously, in that we capture what's available to be seen, rather than creating the whole image from scratch. But is an elaborate studio setup with 100% controlled lighting, backgrounds, props, etc, really that different? Or when we choose aperture, shutter speed, focal length, shooting angle, etc... doesn't that go against the "purity" concept? We are manipulating virtually all of the photograph already and it's hard to define what the "as I saw it" image would really be like. Silky flowing water with a long shutter speed certainly isn't how I see it in real life, for example.

In the end, when creating an image that you (or your client) wants to enjoy, does it really matter how it was made? I don't think so. When I print a photo to hang on the wall, I'm not ashamed that I increased contrast or did a B&W conversion, I just like the final product. That's all that matters. And everyone's tastes are different anyway, so there's no way to please everyone with the same image. I'm not going to like a photo any more or less because of someone else's opinion.

l.k.madison

cab.in.boston wrote: »

In the end, when creating an image that you (or your client) wants to enjoy, does it really matter how it was made? I don't think so. When I print a photo to hang on the wall, I'm not ashamed that I increased contrast or did a B&W conversion, I just like the final product. That's all that matters. And everyone's tastes are different anyway, so there's no way to please everyone with the same image. I'm not going to like a photo any more or less because of someone else's opinion.

My idols (Kelley Ryden and Tracy Raver) have admitting to using composites on their wonderful newborn shots, all this time I spent staring at her work trying to figure out how in the WORLD she did it to learn it was a composite. Left me kinda bummed, but I'm still in awe of her work anyway.

cab.in.boston

l.k.madison wrote: »

Left me kinda bummed, but I'm still in awe of her work anyway.

I understand the bummed feeling, but they still had the vision, and still created the image, right? One could argue that it takes even more skill to create a compelling composite b/c you have to envision all the parts separately and then combine them convincingly, rather than seeing it all before you and "simply" capturing it.

I go into movies knowing that CGI and all sorts of staging and lighting are used, but I still enjoy the finished product, ya know?

zoomer

Agreed...it is a new day. All new forms of technology that allow us to manipulate our world are all around us.
I felt so technologically challenged today when my daughter showed me how she could use her telephone to turn in her school homework.....

l.k.madison

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I understand the bummed feeling, but they still had the vision, and still created the image, right? One could argue that it takes even more skill to create a compelling composite b/c you have to envision all the parts separately and then combine them convincingly, rather than seeing it all before you and "simply" capturing it.

I go into movies knowing that CGI and all sorts of staging and lighting are used, but I still enjoy the finished product, ya know?

Oh, I still love their stuff, don't get me wrong, having the vision on most of their shots is the amazing part.

My husband's style leans towards Anton Corbijn and Robert Frank and after looking at some of their "original" negatives, he gained a whole new respect for the finished product. We all edit to a bit, be it a push or a pull in developing or a slide of the exposure meter, even the greats (Heather, and Angie, I'm talking to you two) edit their pictures to achieve an image.

I'm guilty of it, too. I've had many clients later say "I don't even remember you taking that!", of course they don't remember, I edited your skin, background, lighting etc to get the image you now see instead of the SOOC image I saw when I clicked the button.

reyvee61

This totally rocks but I don't see the original to compare to...
Awesome work!

cab.in.boston

zoomer wrote: »

All new forms of technology that allow us to manipulate our world are all around us.

I think part of my point is that it's not new. My comment about long exposure/silky water was that in the eyes of the post-production "naysayers," a long exposure shot is perfectly okay. Or a shot that includes a scene that looks outrageous, but if you'd been there and seen what was just outside the field of view, it would have looked totally acceptable in context. Photographers have long manipulated the scenes they shoot. And choosing how the shot looks by varying the exposure or lighting or you-name-it, well that's okay in the eyes of the "purist" as well, but in reality it is totally taking something out of context or altering it from how it was "in reality."

We just have fancier/easier ways to do things now with advanced software editing tools. I think it's a case of technology advancing, yes, but it's just new ways of doing the same things photogs have always done.

I felt so technologically challenged today when my daughter showed me how she could use her telephone to turn in her school homework.....

That's cool. I don't want to think about it too much, though. My daughter just started preschool, and that's hard enough as it is.

reyvee61

Ok, I see the original now and it's a great shot too but the sunset being added definitely wows me!

Albert Dickson

I like #2 best. But both are strong work for sure.

Visited your blog and left a note. Great stuff there.

meandirene

I definitely like it, but like they say...beauty is in the details. I think you lost some when her wispy hair was cropped out. I know it's difficult, but maybe someone here has a good tip on how to do it better. Maybe crop wide and then clone back in. I think it would be worth the effort on such a fine image.

I probably wouldn't have even seen it if I was just looking at the composite and you hadn't posted the original, but my eye immediately appreciated the finer details in the 2nd silhouette.

reyvee61

meandirene wrote: »

I definitely like it, but like they say...beauty is in the details. I think you lost some when her wispy hair was cropped out. I know it's difficult, but maybe someone here has a good tip on how to do it better. Maybe crop wide and then clone back in. I think it would be worth the effort on such a fine image.

I probably wouldn't have even seen it if I was just looking at the composite and you hadn't posted the original, but my eye immediately appreciated the finer details in the 2nd silhouette.

Photoshop CS5!
The new way to refine a selection is amazing when it comes to hair!
We got the student version CS5 Extended for $299.
Thant being said, I don't think I'm bothered by the hair that is missing....