Current Scrambler pics

bigwalton

Picture cravin' AK Postal nut
Staff member
SOA Member
City
Dexter
State
MI
Thanks,
Two exposures, one for the stars one for the Jeep.
Star photo was 25 seconds, Jeep was 1/13th of a second.
Nothing at all against this, it's technically awesome, but I have personally never gotten the attraction to this type of "photo." For me, photography is capturing what the viewer would see if they were standing there, enhanced only by what the lens of the camera does with the light (focal length, etc).

No human would ever actually see the result of parsing these two images at those different exposures, so while it's interesting as an art project, I have never gotten the attraction. It's sort of like going nuts with filters and coloring in post-processing--you're creating something other than what the camera or human eye could ever capture. I love the idea of the technical challenge of it and appreciate the creativity, but it loses something to me as photography at that point.

I guess it's not that different than how some people can't consider highly modified Scramblers still Scramblers :shrug: In that case, obviously, I am not one of those :rotfl: but when it comes to photography, I'm more in that camp. To each their own though, as always!
 

93_Fummins

CJ-8 Member
CJ-8.com Member
City
Edmond
State
OK
"Picture cravin', but only if it's what the natural naked eye can physically comprehend in real world scenarios, AK highly modified Postal is still a Scrambler but don't expect me to count them nut"
 

bigwalton

Picture cravin' AK Postal nut
Staff member
SOA Member
City
Dexter
State
MI
"Picture cravin', but only if it's what the natural naked eye can physically comprehend in real world scenarios, AK highly modified Postal is still a Scrambler but don't expect me to count them nut"
Like I said, appreciate it as art and all the creativity!!
 

RMNP CJ-8

Active member
CJ-8.com Member
City
Loveland
State
CO
Nothing at all against this, it's technically awesome, but I have personally never gotten the attraction to this type of "photo." For me, photography is capturing what the viewer would see if they were standing there, enhanced only by what the lens of the camera does with the light (focal length, etc).

No human would ever actually see the result of parsing these two images at those different exposures, so while it's interesting as an art project, I have never gotten the attraction. It's sort of like going nuts with filters and coloring in post-processing--you're creating something other than what the camera or human eye could ever capture. I love the idea of the technical challenge of it and appreciate the creativity, but it loses something to me as photography at that point.

I guess it's not that different than how some people can't consider highly modified Scramblers still Scramblers :shrug: In that case, obviously, I am not one of those :rotfl: but when it comes to photography, I'm more in that camp. To each their own though, as always!
I agree, it's not for everyone.

But also I have come to realize, the camera can never actually capture what the viewer can see when standing there. Even modern cameras are not able to capture the high dynamic range that the eye is capable of capturing without some assistance. For example, this is why most cameras come with a flash included. I can see more in my house during a birthday party than a camera will ever capture without a flash.

In this case, with the lights of the jeep turned off, the Milky Way was that brilliant in the moonless sky of Rocky Mountain National Park. Turing the lights on made it more difficult to see it as brilliantly. Combining the photos shows close to what my eye could see, not the same, in this case with more detail and even light.

It certainly captured what I recall as the experience looking at the stars as I drove and then the Jeep parked in a quiet place away from anyone.

Here is the difference between lights on and lights off.
RDY_5904-Edit-2.jpg RDY_5914-2.jpg
 

Randyzzz

Blown Budget
LIFETIME
CJ-8.com Member
SOA Member
City
Redmond
State
OR
I agree, it's not for everyone.

But also I have come to realize, the camera can never actually capture what the viewer can see when standing there. Even modern cameras are not able to capture the high dynamic range that the eye is capable of capturing without some assistance. For example, this is why most cameras come with a flash included. I can see more in my house during a birthday party than a camera will ever capture without a flash.

In this case, with the lights of the jeep turned off, the Milky Way was that brilliant in the moonless sky of Rocky Mountain National Park. Turing the lights on made it more difficult to see it as brilliantly. Combining the photos shows close to what my eye could see, not the same, in this case with more detail and even light.

It certainly captured what I recall as the experience looking at the stars as I drove and then the Jeep parked in a quiet place away from anyone.

Here is the difference between lights on and lights off.
View attachment 84742 View attachment 84743
My wife is a wild horse photographer. She insists on minimal "playing" with the image- and it works for her. I like an artistic result- that's what makes the difference between a "snapshot" and "art", in my opinion. to each his own. But- I wonder how many people realize that with a modern camera, the JPEG image is manipulated by the software in the camera depending on the auto setting selected. So even if you think you're doing nothing, the camera is. Scenery, sport, night, portrait- all have different internal manipulations. And these vary by camera brand, even sensors "see" things differently.

RMNP CJ-8, I love your photography. Please keep 'em coming!
 
Top