Nah, Surrealism is Dali. In photography, though, Surrealism is nowadays usually pretty abstract stuff which is quite heavily edited.
Much better job on the reprocessed/contrasty image.
Get rid of the human ruining the shot, though.
H
Thanks H. I like having humans in my shots sometimes - depends on the shot or what I'm after. In this case I think it gives it more of a story But i think we'll always differ on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Yes that looks better. Agree with H though the human in the shot (ie yourself) is not really making the shot. Though I suspect it is for earth and people category on ROG?
I hadn't even thought of the ROG - I haven't entered that one before but thanks for the reminder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo
Hi Mike, It was just the bright sunset lit bits of sky shining through an overcast sky merged with the Milky Way suggested it wasn't meant to be a real scene but essentially incongruent elements merged together to challenge the visual senses and represent a world that might be classed as `surreal' . Its a very evocative picture.
Hi Mark. It's not sunset - it was taken at around 1am on Sunday morning, looking to the East overlooking Gosford/Sommersby.
The funky colours in the clouds and near the horizon is from the evening out of the gradients (terrible light pollution) and levels/curves to make the background darker.
I'll post an example of one of the raw images so you can see what it was like straight out of the camera. They're not in-congruent elements. It was all captured with a single 20s exposure (or multiple in this case)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorW
Should these type of images be under deep space or terrestrial, IMO they are not deep space, maybe you should set up a separate heading to cater for them.
Colour seems slightly washed out IMO.
There's not enough of this type of image to warrant their own section/forum, but they definitely are a mix of terrestrial and deep space IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardust steve
Very cool image indeed. Hopefully this Easter break i will be trying to do something very similar. Is that bright orangey star (about a person length above the persons head) Antares?
Thanks Steve - and yes, that's Antares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
I like the symmetry
haha thanks Peter - Had I thought about that I would've leaned a bit further to the right to better match up the angle of the milky way
"You're right Greg - that's the thing I notice about most landscape astrophotography. The foreground matters. The best images (or at least, the ones I like best) are almost always taken from a great location or have something interesting in the foreground."
I like the repro. The Milky Way looks somewhat 3D. A bit of Topaz Labs can give that sort of zing.
As far as a ratio of land to sky goes you probably couldn't go wrong with the old Fibonacci ratios (the Golden Mean .618) or in other words 38.2% foreground and 61.8% main item. I guess the rule of thirds is more of a rough approximation of the .618 Fib ratio which is repeated in nature,galaxies etc in many places. Leonardo DiVinci's man drawing/painting is based on this ratio as are so many things.
Here's 2 images straight out of the camera with no other processing except to resize for the forum.
The first was shaking my fist at the sky because the cloud was right in my way, and the second was another pose I tried. It was my last image of the night, it got cloudier not clearer after that.
Definitely like the second version better. Personally, not so much against having you in the frame, but there's something for me not quite right about the light. The human outline is heavily silhouetted/black. The road, being lighter, feels like it needs a shadow on the ground from the human figure or something? Know what I mean? I understand this is probably a real shot, but because the figure is so dark, it looks like it was a cut and paste job. I also understand that what is lighting the road is probably all over sky, and a soft light and hence no real shadow. But still, since you're pointing to something in the background, this viewer's eye/mind assumes that's the light source, and wants to see a shadow from feet to about 7 o'clock. Did I explain that well?
Yeh understand what you're saying. All of the images of me were completely in silhouette - I was standing about 10m away from the camera wearing dark clothes and there just wasn't anything to light me up
The light pollution reflecting off the clouds was responsible for lighting up the sky and ground.
I love the concept and the image.
I do hate human figures in astrophotos but this one makes sense, it balances the composition and the whole idea so I'm ok with that, I even like it. Did I just say that?
I love the concept and the image.
I do hate human figures in astrophotos but this one makes sense, it balances the composition and the whole idea so I'm ok with that, I even like it. Did I just say that?
Thanks Luis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross G
Hi Mike,
A great idea and nice photo.
Ross.
Many thanks Ross.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacezebra
I like the original photos you posted.
There was an APOD some time back that silhouetted a person and the Milky Way - but it was a little darker - still I like the composition.
Cheers Petra d.
Thanks Petra. The second lot were just an example of the single frames straight from the camera.
Thought provoking image Mike. The silhouette is not diminuitive. More an engaged observer, than the often cited, aren't we insignificant by comparison cliche.
Very nice Mike I think the higher contrast version is better than the original, but the abundance of purple stars is a bit off putting for me, if I'm totally honest, and has been applified with the reprocess. I used to get the same colour fringing around my stars generally if my focus wasn't spot on but as you mention in your description it could also be that that particular lens needs to be stopped down a bit more to reduce the coma. Accurate white balance also helped me.
You beat me to do the roadway thing. I've got plans to do a 360 degree vertical pano with the Milky Way stretching down the road line in a similar vein to "The Great River" One day.........
Cheers
Greg
Thought provoking image Mike. The silhouette is not diminuitive. More an engaged observer, than the often cited, aren't we insignificant by comparison cliche.
Thanks Rowland, much appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsidianphotos
Very nice Mike I think the higher contrast version is better than the original, but the abundance of purple stars is a bit off putting for me, if I'm totally honest, and has been applified with the reprocess. I used to get the same colour fringing around my stars generally if my focus wasn't spot on but as you mention in your description it could also be that that particular lens needs to be stopped down a bit more to reduce the coma. Accurate white balance also helped me.
You beat me to do the roadway thing. I've got plans to do a 360 degree vertical pano with the Milky Way stretching down the road line in a similar vein to "The Great River" One day.........
Cheers
Greg
Thanks Greg. You're right about the purple fringing, and I think it was due to focus.
I hadn't used LiveView on the 5DMk2 and couldn't figure out in the middle of the night where to turn it on. The 40D was just the button at the back in the middle of the dial, but I couldn't find how to turn it on. So my focus was a bit off.
But i think we'll always differ on that 
