Home • Register • Forum • RSS • User List • Login Your trail: > Home > Tag:Jugal Tiwari > LIGHTNING well created .......... LIGHTNING well created .......... "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does all the work" - Mark Twain... -> Edit by INW TEAM: The lightning has been digitally added here through PS. Tips on how to do it will be posted by the author soon. Poster: Ashish Parmar Views: 1370 Tags: Ashish Parmar  December  2007  Gundal backwaters      canon 30d  canon 18-55  ashish  dam,  gundal  lightning  parmar,  Date: Apr 17, 2008

Comments:

Santosh Saligram     wrote, @17-04-2008 18:44:34 Wow, fantastic capture, Ashish!

Niranjan M     wrote, @17-04-2008 18:49:33 Toooooo good!

Pramod Viswanath     wrote, @17-04-2008 18:52:31 I don't see any "cumulonimbus" clouds around for the lightening!

Hemanth Shanthigrama     wrote, @17-04-2008 18:54:10 Lovely timing... did you have it on long exposure???

Arjun Narayan     wrote, @17-04-2008 18:57:17 wow! beautiful image

S. Das     wrote, @17-04-2008 19:10:30 Why can't I see the reflection on the lake water !!!

Kalyan Varma     wrote, @18-04-2008 10:17:13 Ashish, it looks like you have added the lightning to the image. As its not cloudy, lightnings cannot be that long and they never have a color either. Anyway it would be nice if you actually mention that you put it together in photoshop or remove the image. I know many photographers who waited many nights, got their equipment wet , risked getting hit themselves to get a lightning photograph. Would this be dis-respecting all their efforts and work ? I worked in BR hills for a year and tired more than 40 - 50 nights to capture a lightning. Even driving in the middle of the night to a view points and setting up non-stop long exposures.. and was never successful. And now you just managed with few min work in Photoshop. As I said, there is nothing wrong with playing with Photoshop. Just keep it to a point where you are not adding/removing things to the image or if you do, mentioning it would be great like others do in INW.

Ashish Parmar     wrote, @18-04-2008 12:03:56 Dear Kalyan, NO OFFENCE PLEASE .............. HOLD IT ! Firstly removing the image is not possible............. This is an effort to educate the ones who dont know how capable photoshop is & encourage them to post process..... what I realised is that teaching them how to process a bad image is an futile effort but with something like this I have had people mailing to findout how I did it .......... which inturn make them spend time on photoshop & learn. Coming to ace lensman like yourself & others of the same foray can just look at it & say that its created & not captured........ I myself have spent quite a few hours to get a right image of a lightning but all efforts invain ...... so this is no way near dis-respecting any photographers efforts. Following the comments & curiosity this image creates will be a tutorial on the same subject. wait on .............. cheers !!! ashish parmar

Kalyan Varma     wrote, @18-04-2008 12:21:45 Ashish, I think you missed my point. First of all I'm not asking you to remove the image and neither am I saying it should not be posted here. According to you if you wanted people to see the power of post-process and learn, then you must mention that it was post-processed so that people know it is and it would be even more useful if you actually mention your steps that you have taken. Even I want to know what you did because I'm not that good either. What it looks above is that you are trying to pass it off as a rare capture when its something that has been done on a computer. Also there is a big gap between post-process and digital manipulation. I'm all for post-process. We are all digital shooters and without post-process we cannot have the image in its right form. Manipulation is when you are cloning or mixing images. Again its a great art to do that and I know some great wildlife artists like Steve bloom who are exactly that. Also as a photographer people need to trust you. Now that people know the above image was processed, the next time you actually get a great image of say a lightning hitting and hill top, people will think that you actually put it together in photoshop. Its your call at the end of the day.

Jayanth Sharma     wrote, @18-04-2008 12:37:15 >>>>> he next time you actually get a great image of say a lightning hitting and hill top, people will think that you actually put it together in photoshop. Yea its his call. He will reap what he sows, But imagine the next time when people see a lightning photograph (someone else's) and they would think that's been creatively made in photo shop, then it would be the time for many to announce bumper sale of their cameras and lenses. I am not guessing :) Ashish you yourself asked me if my lightning was made in photoshop. The larger issue is the general public thinking digital photographers are a whole bunch of faking jokers..and we know how much it hurts.

Pramod Viswanath     wrote, @18-04-2008 12:43:26 I am watching this topic since yesterday and it really hurts at the end of the day when I see this. WeI I mena hte wildlife photographers) get up early in the morning, do all the hard work on field sweating it out yearning to make that one image and at the end of the day it hurts when others say - " Is it real". When such is the thoughts of common man, I guess we need to set an example that really shows the ethical way of making images. All I can say is please do think about the ethical aspects of it. Just my 2 cents..

Ashish Parmar     wrote, @18-04-2008 14:46:01 Dear Kalyan, For some manipulation might mean cloning or mixing but as an photographer & a digital artist I consider the term manipulation as a process or call it a "treatment" which an image undergoes. Adjusting channels, cropping, enhancing colours are also considered manipulation of an image. Including doing up the background which most the guys here do....... For me people coming & asking me "how I did it" is more respectful than people just sayin "good job" ! Dear Jayant, Yes I agree I asked you that if your lightning image is a PS job cos I come from a background where in I have interacted with equal number of photographers & digital artists from across the globe. Im sorry again if I hurt you by asking that but ............... Public thinking about digital photographers faking is not wrong, blame it on the technological revolution but they will soon understand that what it takes to justify their term "faking"! Dear Pramod, I too do a little bit of wildlife photography & its useless to mention - getting up early in morning+hard work on field+others things.........if people just mention wildlife photography its understood what kind of effort goes in it & if they ask me "is it real" I would not mind at all as it would be of great pleasure in explaining an amateur ! Please let know the un ethical part of my image........this is an "others" section.

Santosh Saligram     wrote, @18-04-2008 16:01:30 Hey Ashish, since you gave me the URL to this post, I suppose that you're asking my opinion about the debate, so here it is. I think what Kalyan, Jayanth and Pramod are trying to say here is that if there are elements in the photograph that have been digitally introduced or removed, you should mention so explicitly. I don't think anyone here is against post-processing or digital manipulation, but the point here is that transparency should prevail when anything beyond the basic PPing (including sharpness, brightness/contrast, levels, saturation and cropping) is done to the image. What these guys are trying to say is photographers will lose credibility if we are not transparent and upfront about such manipulation, that's all! As you can see, I myself failed to recognize that this wasn't a naturally captured image, and most people would similarly fail to realise it. So it's good to let people know what you've done and how you've achieved it before questions are raised. Once again, great effort in creating this. No-one can take credit away from you for your PP skills.

Sudhir Shivaram     wrote, @19-04-2008 11:02:26 Ashish, As per the posting guidelines of INW: If the image has been digitally altered beyond simple adjustments to color, contrast and sharpening, etc., please state so in your post! Request you to follow the posting guidelines.

Sainath Vellal     wrote, @19-04-2008 17:17:49 I think the "un ethical" part in this photograph is not mentioning _explicitly_ that this click has been altered by adding elements that were not there before. Actually this looks straight out of a computer game which nowadays are more realistic :-)

Ashok T Hegde     wrote, @19-04-2008 19:50:29 I have seen manupulation,doctoring in news papers. In an ethical,non commercial site likeINW one must respect posting guidelines. Is there no way of ejecting something from the gallery as you do in Forum ?

A.G.Manoj     wrote, @19-04-2008 22:06:10 Wow !!! "What is a CLUTTER" in action !!! Thank you Ashok T Hedge for guiding me to this Image !!!

A.G.Manoj     wrote, @19-04-2008 22:07:26 ie from the Forum.

Dipu K     wrote, @21-04-2008 16:02:30 Dear Ashish, I assume all others are asking you to only update your title and description of the image to mention that this is an amazing PP work and also how you did this... And you can do this by just clicking the pen icon on the bottom of your image... You seemed to answer every other "philosophical" question on PP and manipulation, but didn't respond to the above request... Hope doing that wont be too much of a work for you... PS: I am neither a photographer (to say so) or an expert in digital processing to "advise" you... just a humble opinion from the "WATCH" part of India Nature Watch :-)

A.G.Manoj     wrote, @21-04-2008 21:54:39 I like your Frankness Ashish !!! ".....Firstly removing the image is not possible...." But,since members of the INW team have themselves objected, the least you could do is edit the caption and add the information regarding the "Addition" of Lightening. Or are you secretly enjoying all this attention? :-)

Ashish Parmar     wrote, @22-04-2008 15:33:21 Hello Folks .............. Sorry for not responding to the above comments as I was not in Bangalore during weekend & Monday ...... I'm back & I shall sort out the issues one by one ...... Dear Sainath Vellal, If one is a smart cookie, he/she would just look at the image & justify the lightning being artificial in less than 5 seconds ...... some are smart enough to question the lack of clouds & reflections in water & some still ask me to mention "that this click has been altered by adding elements". Tell me how many amateurs knew that the lightning image needs to have clouds & also that lightning cannot be of this colour ....... now because of "my" image they have been enlightened of the fact ..........! I like the appreciation of comparing my image to top class computer games ! Dear Ashok T Hegde, Strange to know that you consider newspapers as "unethical" ! Again if a person is smart enough he could read the image title & get to know that it is a creation & not capture..... agreed that I have not mentioned the "how did I do" part of it but have specified in one of my comments that the tutorial on same will be out soon. Dont understand why you are bent upon getting this image out, may be you should start taking images for your gallery which does not exist. Dear Dipu K, I dont think the title needs to be more informative than "LIGHTNING well created......." its extremely self explanatory. The description of the image is very much present if you notice. All required here is "how did I do"...which as mentioned will be out soon. Thanks for showing me the pen icon......you are a genius !!! Sorry for not understanding your"watch" opinion, I really didnt get it. Dear Manoj, Kindly suggest a caption which can be more explanatory than this one ! Tutorials coming soon. Dont know but looks like i'm one of the controversial photographers on INW & i'm liking every bit of it ! Cheers to all !!! Thanks a lot for spending time on my "IMAGE" !

Vivek Kale     wrote, @23-04-2008 21:09:13 1) The lightening clearly looks fake. 2) I feel that the image will look quite nice without lightening. 3) I personally feel that the technical specifications such as exposure, ISO, aperture and postprocessing (basic) should be made mandatory fields in the image uploading form on INW. 4) Almost everybody knows that the images can be violently altered, Is it necessary to use this forum for this education ? 5) Waiting for some really good image from you !!

Dinesh Ramarao     wrote, @25-04-2008 16:53:25 some more this debate, read maestro Ganesh's interesting article (for those who have not read this): http://www.naturelyrics.com/articles/post_processing_ethics/post_processing_ethics.html

Shiva Shankar Manjunatha     wrote, @15-05-2008 08:24:01 Very interesting discussion..

Anil Thomas     wrote, @19-01-2009 01:03:32 One word describes this post and as per rules I am not allowed to use it...sigh bad luck

Ashok Karan     wrote, @03-09-2009 13:26:12 Nice picture, but the discussion on this is good. It will enhance the knowledge.

Shrikant Ranade     wrote, @07-10-2009 16:19:23 Our friend Ashish Parmar is missing the point here. Many of his reply answers are not is good taste ( I hope he does not misunderstand the meaning of 'good taste' ). He has totally missed out on the point. The main SUBJECT and the TITLE of the image itself is FAKE and not shot by him. He should respect the moderators of this site. And remember that it is not anyone's birthright to be on this site, but it is only by invitation. He should be Modest, and abide by the request / instructions of seniors and moderators. (My Frank Opinion)

You could post here if you were logged in.