There are many stunning images, but the PHOTOGRAPHIC quality displayed
here is quite low. There are only a couple of them that actually appear
to have something within the frame in focus.
I wouldn't want to be one of the judges trying to choose winners &
losers based on what is displayed on that web page.
On 7/27/2016 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Great pics. But a fork, a spoon and a moon appears to be a photoshop job.
The tree branches are seen in silhouette but the bird is nicely illuminated.
By what? Especially against the moon background, which would have required
a sunny 16 exposure. Ain't gonna happen.
Now *that's* what we call a "very good point"!
From the superficial examination one can perform on a web-resolution
image, I think the bird has been subject to some dramatic dodging in
Photoshop. I don't *think* it's a composite shot, but I'd have to have
access to a full-res shot to be certain. Obviously, the judges do, and
may even have access to the raw file. Perhaps this kind of Photoshop
is allowed? I haven't read the contest rules but I know from going to
the exhibit in the past and reading the technical descriptions of the
photos some kinds of post-capture processing are allowed.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2016/jul/27/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year-2016-shortlist-in-pictures
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
