Chiang Rai Sky

[VincentRJ 1,224]

The air quality and the clarity of the sky have taken a hit the last few days. Still I managed to get up in the mountains to find a previously unexplored reservoir yesterday. With the access trail leaving something to be desired the result was a fairly pristine environment. I am not entirely happy with what happened to the colors when exporting the images but this was the best I could do under the circumstances.

I can't understand why anyone would think this thread is no longer about Chiang Rai. Specifically, it's about the Chiang Rai sky, and your photos, Villagefarang, illustrate the Chiang Rai sky marvelously.

　

I agree there is a slight reddish tinge to the sky in the Huay Haum Dam photo which is difficult to remove without also diminishing the blue of the sky, so why not exaggerate that reddish tinge?

After all, Chiang Rai is in the Golden Triangle, is it not? One might expect the occasionally reflection in the sky, of fields of red opium poppies. (Just joking. I understand the Thai Government has now got that mostly under control.)

[villagefarang 15,791]

The air quality and the clarity of the sky have taken a hit the last few days. Still I managed to get up in the mountains to find a previously unexplored reservoir yesterday. With the access trail leaving something to be desired the result was a fairly pristine environment. I am not entirely happy with what happened to the colors when exporting the images but this was the best I could do under the circumstances.

I can't understand why anyone would think this thread is no longer about Chiang Rai. Specifically, it's about the Chiang Rai sky, and your photos, Villagefarang, illustrate the Chiang Rai sky marvelously.

　

I agree there is a slight reddish tinge to the sky in the Huay Haum Dam photo which is difficult to remove without also diminishing the blue of the sky, so why not exaggerate that reddish tinge?

After all, Chiang Rai is in the Golden Triangle, is it not? One might expect the occasionally reflection in the sky, of fields of red opium poppies. (Just joking. I understand the Thai Government has now got that mostly under control.)

I suspect the, not Chiang Rai related line of attack, was little more than a desperate misdirection motivated by a personal dislike for my online persona. I genuinely hope that these recent distractions will not affect members willingness to post here and not reflect negatively on the forum as a whole. Chiang Rai is really a wonderful place with a colorful mix of interesting residents and visitors.

Your idea of exaggeration is an interesting one and perhaps worth exploring, though some may complain about the shot being over-shopped.

[sceadugenga 3,068]

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

[krobert6 1,077]

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

I think if people are posting shots representing the Chiang Rai sky they you have natural colours and not be heavily modified. As most of the shots are heavily saturated and colorised they probably should be posted in a photography section under editing.

[ripstanley 3,590]

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

I think if people are posting shots representing the Chiang Rai sky they you have natural colours and not be heavily modified. As most of the shots are heavily saturated and colorised they probably should be posted in a photography section under editing.

The few photos I have posted here have had no editing. That is why I posted them here. They are of the sky in Chiang Rai region

[villagefarang 15,791]

As I said, misdirection, and best ignored.

[villagefarang 15,791]

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

With modern cameras there is even in-camera editing going on. Each company and camera runs its own algorithms to convert and compress the data into a JPEG, typically.

If you shoot in RAW you will need software designed specifically for your camera model to be able to download it and view it on your computer. There really is no such thing as an unprocessed photo so the argument becomes how much processing is acceptable, which is matter of person preference at best.

Even the likes of Ansel Adams was renowned for the time he spent in the darkroom working on and editing his historic and acclaimed black and white landscapes.

[krobert6 1,077]

I think photo shopping plays a major part in any photography these days, it's a rare photo I don't fiddle with, even if it's just a minor crop.

Back in the day it was a complex process involving darkrooms and smelly chemicals but now improvement is just a mouse click away.

I think if people are posting shots representing the Chiang Rai sky they you have natural colours and not be heavily modified. As most of the shots are heavily saturated and colorised they probably should be posted in a photography section under editing.

The few photos I have posted here have had no editing. That is why I posted them here. They are of the sky in Chiang Rai region

Your shots are not heavily edited - but when I see blue clouds of a purple sky - whilst pretty it is not a true representation of what you will see in CR

[VincentRJ 1,224]

I think it's a misconception to believe that one can produce a photo without editing having taken place. All photos have to be edited. When they are not edited, you can't see them. In the case of a digital camera, an unedited photo is just a pile of numbers on a memory card.

The primary choice for all photographers is whether or not to let the camera do the editing according to its inbuilt, pre-programmed procedures, which may or may not be ideal for any particular shot you've just taken, or take full control of the editing processes by converting those numbers, outside of the camera, to a format that can be seen as a picture, using software of your choice and making your own adjustments so that the final, edited image, more closely represents the scene that you saw, experienced or remembered, as you pressed the shutter.

The reason this thread has attracted my attention is not only because I'm interested in visiting Chiang Rai, but because these photos by Villagefarang are so exceptional. The thread is about the Chiang Rai sky and these photos are exactly that, and are amongst the best series of photos of skies that I've ever come across. One may find individual photos of skies elsewhere that are perhaps even more unusual or captivating, but as a series, these photos could make an excellent book for a coffee table, or be worthy of any photographic exhibition.

[krobert6 1,077]

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

Edited October 4, 2012 by krobert6

[villagefarang 15,791]

I think we all know what the real point is, and it has nothing to do with photography.

Besides there is already a link in the photography section directing interested individuals here.

Edited October 4, 2012 by villagefarang

[sceadugenga 3,068]

I was probably one of the first offenders in setting up photo threads in the Chiang Rai forum rather than the Photography section.

While I had a lot of respect for some of the guys there I found other's comments, not necessarily directed at me, petty and unhelpful.

Other aspects, which I'll not go into considering the current atmosphere here, left something to be desired as well.

Edited October 4, 2012 by sceadugenga

[kevjohn 16,570]

The reason I get so much out of this thread is

(1) I live in a block of units in Sydney Aust.

(2) My view, from my balcony is another block of units.

Need I say more?

Edited October 4, 2012 by kevjohn

[krobert6 1,077]

The reason I get so much out of this thread is

(1) I live in a block of units in Sydney Aust.

(2) My view, from my balcony is another block of units.

Need I say more?

I jave a nice green view from my other home in Melbourne - but nothing beats my lounge view here in Yonok CR

[VincentRJ 1,224]

I think you are missing the poit. I am a professional photographer and know very well what editing is required and done in many different scenarios.

The thread is about the CR sky and if anyone is expecting to see the sky as represented is very much mistaken.

The shots would be better placed in the photo section.

I have attached a shot where the sky is (as shot). Taken with a Canon 1ds Mark III and a 24-70L Lens at f11

I don't believe I am missing the point. As a professional photographer you should certainly know very well what editing is required to satisfy your clients, but you can't be expected to know what editing is required to satisfy people whom you don't know.

Another myth about photography is that the camera never lies. As a person who has taken photos with both film and digital cameras over many years, I know very well that skies can be a problem. The reason is, that the camera normally gets just one exposure at one F/stop and one shutter speed that has to be sufficient for both dark areas in the foreground and exceptionally bright areas in the sky.

What tends to happen with automatic, in-camera processing, or even the K-Mart processing of film and prints in the olden days, is that a compromise is made. Skies are often sacrificed in the interests of lighter shadows in the foreground. Skies often tend to become insipid and uninspiring, or even sometimes completely blown, white and devoid of detail.

This is one of the many instances when the camera lies (metaphorically of course).

However, when the photographer views the scene he is about to photograph, his own eye does not use just one F/stop like a camera lens. As he gazes at the bright sky, his pupil will significantly contract so that the retina will not be swamped with light, and so that he can discern every subtle shade of cloud detail in the brightest part of the sky.

Likewise, as his gaze shifts to the dark shadows in the undergrowth of the green foliage in the foreground, the pupil will dilate within a fraction of a second, so that the eye can discern with great clarity that grasshopper lurking in them thar shadows.

As I've mentioned before, this thread is about the Chinag Rai sky, and Villagefarang depicts that sky in his photos marvelously well.

Now it's true that I've never lived in Chiang Rai so I cannot argue with you about the accuracy of those skies in VF's photos. However, in Australia, where I spend most of my time, I've often seen skies as dramatic and brooding, and colorful and vibrant, as in VF's photos, so his depiction of skies are credible to me, and I like them. That's what counts.

However, as an aspiring Buddhist, I can state that everything is an illusion, so don't worry about it.