# 2 from tonight's sunset



## Digital Matt (Sep 4, 2006)

It's been so long since I've seen a sunset.  I was so glad I went tonight.  I needed a break, and a chance to take some photos again, for me.

Let me know what you think


----------



## tgates (Sep 4, 2006)

#2 is my favorite. Beautiful shot!


----------



## THORHAMMER (Sep 4, 2006)

wow!!!! I really love them both, #2 is also my fav...

I wish I could of seen that !!

did you do any light painting with a flashlight? or just avail light?

totally awsome !!!


----------



## ShootHoops (Sep 4, 2006)

These pictures are so amazing, it's insane! :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (Sep 4, 2006)

nice work Matt, looks like a sunset we had over Lake Erie last week.


----------



## midget patrol (Sep 4, 2006)

If that's Hell's Horizon, then I'm going straight to hell and not stopping on the way.

Beautiful.


----------



## jdunphy (Sep 4, 2006)

These are sexy, sexy photos.  The second one 'bout near made my jaw drop.


----------



## Arch (Sep 5, 2006)

good stuff matt, these are great..... is this with a 4x ND or maybe a few stacked?.... great exposure and processing :thumbsup:


----------



## siphoto (Sep 5, 2006)

AMAZING, It's allways a dream to shoot such a bright sunset as so... but living on the Gold Coast its a rare site to see one as stunning as that.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks everyone 

No filters used here.  I was able to get around 1 sec exposures at f/22.  I do have a 4x ND but I forgot it 

No painting with light.  I processed 2 versions of the raw file, with one version having a bit of exposure comp and lower contrast, for the foreground and driftwood.  I had fired my flash for bit of punch in the foreground as well.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 5, 2006)

midget patrol said:
			
		

> If that's Hell's Horizon, then I'm going straight to hell and not stopping on the way.
> 
> Beautiful.


 
I'll see you there 

amazing just amazing


----------



## Holly (Sep 5, 2006)

beautiful! Also loving 2nd one Matt


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks you 2


----------



## Mohain (Sep 5, 2006)

Wow. Beautiful!


----------



## Johnboy2978 (Sep 5, 2006)

As always, this is some beautiful work Matt.  Nicely done!


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks Mohain, and thank you John


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 5, 2006)

very nice!
prefer the second one in terms of composition.

but the first one is definitely less tame and less common  regarding the colours


----------



## jwkwd (Sep 5, 2006)

Just.............................WOW!


----------



## dirtnapper (Sep 5, 2006)

Excellent! WOW!


----------



## zombiekilla (Sep 5, 2006)

I think there awesome! The only problem I have with digitally altered photos is you cant see the persons natural talent. To me it seems like its all about who can digitally alter their photos better. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying you have a lack of talent at all. Obviously they were beautiful shots to begin with. It just urks me that everyone feels the need to alter their photos.


----------



## forceflow1049 (Sep 5, 2006)

That second shot is simply amazing!


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 5, 2006)

Thank you everyone 

Zombiekilla, every photo is manipulated, the second you press the shutter button.  It's manipulated again when you develop it, and yet again when you print it.  Why are you so concerned only with digital editing?  It seems to present the point of view that film is not manipulated at all in post process, and only what is done by the photographer at the scene is what is seen in the print.  Totally untrue.

Yes, I did develop two versions of a raw file, something that is unique to digital.  Using the zone system and manipulating highlight/shadows, and contrast range through development is a feature of black and white film.  Cross processing is a feature of shooting color film. 

I could have just as easily shot these with slide film, and a combination of neutral grad filters.  I could have altered the colors in the second shot either by using a warming filter over the lens, or altering my filter pack when making the print.


----------



## oCyrus55 (Sep 5, 2006)

Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla.  I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill.  I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 5, 2006)

oCyrus55 said:
			
		

> Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla.  I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill.  I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.



I will rely first and formost on my heart, to lead my artwork in the direction it wants to go.  After that, I will rely on every tool in my arsenal, to achieve the desired expression.  Photography is an artform, one that uses many techniques, and many pieces of equipment.

I wouldn't limit myself to one brush if I was a painter, and nobody would expect me to.  It's silly.

True skill, or natural talent, is utilized at every step of any artistic process, from pre-visualization, to creation, and even post visualization.  If you don't consider these steps important, then you don't know enough about them, and you haven't seen a piece of art all the way through to its end.

The camera is just the beginning.


----------



## fightheheathens (Sep 6, 2006)

great shots.

first,
When i have developed, my prints i bring out of the dark room are often more  manipulated that what i do with digital. (mostly because i am not very good with digital) 

secondly

"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
-Ansel Adams


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 6, 2006)

have to comment on all this "manipulation of the image hides your true skill" .. it is always a question what you want to achieve and show! Altering things in photoshop or in a RAW-converter or using filters also needs some expertise and skill and feeling for colours and moods.

It is simply the question if you feel more like a creative artist who does not want to create a natural look in his images, but who wants to transfer some mood pushed to the extreme ... or if you want your photo to reflect the actual light at the scene in a documentary sense.

But where does manipulation start anyway? It is hard to draw a line! Manipulation is already if you use a polariser, or a colour filter. Manipulation is also if you use a film like Fuji Velvia with its rather extreme contrast and colours, manipulation is also if you tweak your tone curve slightly in your RAW-converter to get to the look you remember when taking the photo at the scene.
HOWEVER, your impression of the scene is something rather emotional, therefore you will often put things in your interpretation of the tone curve which are more related to the smell, the sounds and your mood when you were there. Believe me, we do it without realising!

The true colour-calibrated image often looks rather dull and not vibrant at all (but it is what actually reaches our eyes when we are out there!).

The images shown here take this "manipulation" to the extreme. Maybe this is even more honest than the only subtle tweaking we all do mostly to our photos, as in the xtreme case it is easy to see that it is not the true colours, but it is the artists interpretation and what he wants to express.


----------



## Mohain (Sep 6, 2006)

I'm sorry, I tried, but I cant help myself ....



			
				zombiekilla3k said:
			
		

> I think there awesome! The only problem I have with digitally altered photos is you cant see the persons natural talent. To me it seems like its all about who can digitally alter their photos better. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying you have a lack of talent at all. Obviously they were beautiful shots to begin with. It just urks me that everyone feels the need to alter their photos.


 


			
				oCyrus55 said:
			
		

> Yeh, these are great shots, but I totally agree with zombiekilla. I think sometimes editing your photos takes away from your true skill. I think you should rely on your camera, not photoshop.


 
Comments like this make me laugh. Some people just don't think what they are saying sometime (I know I'm guilty of that sin!)

... So is it OK to use an ND grad, diffuse filter, tobacco grad, warm 85 filter and Velvia film then produce a hand print, dodging and burning highlights and shadows in order to produce a more blalanced print and print it on a glossy paper that's known to produce saturated colours? But it's not OK to alter a digital file how you see fit?

Sorry Matt, PM me if you want me to delete this reply I don't want to distract from the wonderful images you have produced.

/thread hijack over


----------



## Arch (Sep 6, 2006)

yes its one of those arguements were opinions can differ alot.... and sometimes its experience that gives a more reasonable appraisal.

Its easy to spot a photo which has had very obvious photoshoping.... i.e. a crazy preset filter that makes the image look more like graphic art than a photograph.... and quite often these types of images arn't pre-visualized, they are just an after thought.

But this is not the case here.... the processing takes nothing away from the original subject.... in fact it enhances the drama/emotion..... and if its how matt visualized it, then it is successful.


----------



## JTHphoto (Sep 6, 2006)

i like 'em...  especially #2.  

:thumbup:


----------



## Tolyk (Sep 6, 2006)

Great work Matt, and I completely agree with your editting comments.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 6, 2006)

Thanks for your comments everyone.  I suspect the debate over digital editing has yet to see it's height, but I'd like to, if possible, keep threads with images posted in them on topic, which is commenting and critiquing the photos, and not the debating the processing used.

God knows, we've debated digital editing on this forum enough.  If anyone wants to pm me, feel free, but let's end this debate.

Thank you all once again for your comments.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 6, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> if possible, keep threads with images posted in them on topic, which is commenting and critiquing the photos, and not the debating the processing used.



Although the process is always part of the photo you show  But I agree that this thread is not for dogmatic discussions.

And remember, if an artist's work is appreciated by actually everyone, then he  most likely did produce something boring :mrgreen:


----------



## duncanp (Sep 16, 2006)

WOW :O


----------



## 2Stupid2Duck (Sep 16, 2006)

Great work Matt.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 16, 2006)

Thanks guys


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 16, 2006)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> The camera is just the beginning.



Right on!  Right on!!  For over 100 years people have debated whether photography is an art because the results depend so much on the limitations of the machine.  Now we've finally gotten to the point where the machine gives us unlimited options to explore our artistic vision, and people want to be restricted to preconceived notions about what is allowable.  We are no longer limited by the machine, only by our minds and heart.    

"Straight" photography is an illusion; it's a misconception of what really happens between the point where a person decides to take a photo to the final result whether that be a hand printed, gelatin silver print from sheet film exposed in a 100 year old camera, or an inkjet print or computer display from the latest DSLRs.

A quote from Edward Steichen at the beginning of the last century:



> In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability.





			
				Digital Matt said:
			
		

> I'd like to, if possible, keep threads with images posted in them on topic



I couldn't help myself.  These are the first sunset photographs to excite me in years.  Keep stepping past the boundries.



			
				Ansel Adams said:
			
		

> When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 16, 2006)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> I couldn't help myself.  These are the first sunset photographs to excite me in years.  Keep stepping past the boundries.



No problem Matt.  I understand the need to reply.  This topic is one of the most heavily debated in recent art history.  I'm glad you like these photos.  I will continue to go to that beach and record sunsets.


----------



## ravikiran (Sep 22, 2006)

Fine photography matt.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 22, 2006)

Thank you.


----------

