DPP Exercise 22 Addition

The image is the combined result of two images taken at almost the same time with the camera set on a tripod. The first was an exposure for the sea and the second an exposure for the sky. The difference was  1and 1/3 of an f stop.  The rather odd change in the colour of the sea towards the horizon appears in both original images and I assume is the effect of the low mist bank on the horizon.

Although I have Photoshop and could have worked on the image as two separate layers I used the PhotoMerge facility to produce the final image. Prior to the availability of this software I used the technique of erasing the unwanted area from the photograph. I never found this wholly satisfactory as great care had to be taken to ensure that the horizon line did not show evidence of the alteration. The technique was not very good where the horizon was 'messy' such as trees or irregular roof lines. PhotoMerge works well in these situations although it is always necessary to check carefully to make sure there are no unwanted artefacts.

In this image the sky has been replaced by a 'storm approaching' sky that I had taken about a year ago. The tricky part was the initial selection. I used the quick selection tool initially and then used the 'Refine Edge' tool to improve the selection particularly where there were trees in the horizon line. There was a certain amount of tweaking necessary and I changed the selection to a Quick Mask and painted in or out those areas where the selection was not accurate enough.  I did not select the individual branches of the trees as I believed that the difference in the skies would not be noticeable and that proved to be the case.

In terms of realism the lighter side of the lighthouse indicates that the sun is coming from the right of the picture. Fortunately the lighting on the clouds was an acceptable match so that the overall result gave the impression of being one image.

I presume that the question that we are to ask ourselves is ' Is the work done to the first image less ethically questionable than that carried out in the second image?' Again I would argue that it depends upon context. Clearly the second image is not of a 'real' event - it has been created. However unless I claim that it is an actual image then the question of ethics does not arise. 

I do recognise that if I entered it in an exhibition with a title 'Storm Approaching' there is an underlying assumption that the image is of a real event. Am I misleading the public by omission? What if I entered it under the title 'Stormy Sky' is this less misleading as the sky part is real? It is an interesting question whether the titles we give our images are disguised to hide the truth, to direct the thoughts of the viewer to understand our intent or to give a neutral guide to help the viewer understand and reach his own conclusions.