Hi there, I’m posting this here that is directly related to my comments in @Kathy_Barnhart post about “What is Photo Art.” I put my own definition of Photo Art out there and below is a test to that definition"
“Photo Art is the intentional alteration of an image/photograph to render that photograph in such a way that it no longer represents the original scene.”
Just captured this last night, where for the most part the lunar eclipse in Northern CA was a bust. 95% of the time, rain and clouds. A couple hours before sunset I scouted out the location I return to over and over again (you may recognize the tree,) as I thought this would be a perfect vantage point and orientation to get that classic eclipse image with all the stages eventually combined in to one frame. I used the Photopills app on my phone to confirm this would be a perfect spot. There were a few small breaks in the clouds and I snapped a few images with different focal lengths to start my planning. I then returned to this spot an hour before the eclipse was to begin - in the pouring rain. I waited for an hour and a half or so and finally gave up and went home. Just prior to the beginning of the full eclipse, I went in the back yard to find the sky had opened up and there it was, the moon in almost full eclipse. I went and grabbed my two cameras, two tripods, my gear and notes… (Thank you btw to @Sandy_Richards-Brown who provided some good links earlier - very helpful, thanks!) It was clear for maybe 10 min and then in and out for another 10, then started raining again. I managed just a handful of images at 200mm and 300mm. And NOT very good at that.
Came in and sat down at the computer. An orange moon. Now that’s something! wooo-hooo! What the heck am I gonna do with these? Yeah, awesome, I got to see part of the eclipse. Now what? I decided to see what I could do to combine the moon with another image. This isn’t something I’ve done before, but after learning how to stack many images in to one, like for an eclipse… I thought I would practice the process. Below is my end result.
And to finally answer the question and test my definition. This belongs in Photo Art. Not only a composite but this image I’m presenting didn’t happen. I captured the tree and clouds and then combined with a moon shot taken elsewhere. Neither the moon, nor the tree/sky did I ever see naturally. Regarding “artistic rendition…” again it’s totally subjective. Some may thing what is produced here as artistic, while just as many others just see a composite image with no artistic value. You can’t judge this for art’s sake. But if all we’re doing is defining what gallery to post something in to, then I say Photo Art (or may non-nature?)
Feel free. Just playing around and thought it was cool enough to post.
Tree/sky image: Nikon D800E, Nikon 28-300mm @45mm handheld
Moon image: Nikon D800E, Nikon 28-300mm @300mm, f/5.6 5s at iso 800
Blended layer using “Lighten” blending mode at about 50% opacity and dragged the moon around for best effect and realism.
Posting just for fun and hoping for a good discussion in Kathy’s thread.
Thanks for looking and any comments