Okay, it's a sucker bet, 'cause there is no such place. It might look strangely familiar, sort of like the bizarro version of Bass Harbor Head Light in Maine. Problem is that the building at BHHL is white stucco, not red brick. It opens onto the sea and there isn't an inlet anywhere near the light. Below the light is the rock bound coast that Maine is famous for, not a tree lined rocky coastline. It's close to Bass Harbor, but there's too many things that don't belong to be right.
Well, it's all in Maine, all at parts of Acadia National Park, but the pieces that make up this image aren't within miles of each other. In addition to changing the stucco to brick on the actual Bass Harbor Head Light, the coastline is over near Otter Cliffs and the spit of land on the left is part of one of the ponds on Park Loop Road. It's kind of what is commonly referred to as a "mashup" in today's speak. Createing places that exist only in your mind is something to do with shots that don't quite make it on their own. I did another composite from Acadia, but made the mistake of using three of the better half's shots. You probably won't be seeing that one any time soon, as I've been roundly chastised for messing with her shots. But it was pretty cool. She had a shot of one of the Carriage Road bridges. The road or path under the bridge had gone into disuse and was overgrown with vegetation. The second was aa shot of the road we'd parked the car on when taking a couple of shots. The third was a lake (pond) side shot that showed the tree lind bank. When I was finished playing with the three images the road under the store bridge was back open for traffic and the unattractive growth had been replaced with a line of trees. Pretty believeable it I do say so.
There's nothing wrong with playing with pictures. As I've said in past posts, your intent is what makes an image art verses something else. Trying to past off the composite of either today's lighthouse shot or the road under the bridge as factual would be wrong and an unneccessary fraud. When a painter creates his/her artwork, they are free to add, subtract or change parts of what they see. No one accuses a painter of fraud when they paint "what they see". If the artist doesn't "see" the trashcan by the pier, no one shakes a finger for not being true to the reality in their line of sight. If "art" is the intention of the photographer the same "rules" should apply. If the trashcan is the one thing that ruins an otherwise beautiful image there's two choices. Post-production or pre-production. If the object (the trashcan in this case) isn't chained down and can easily be moved, move it before taking the shot. (Put it back when you're finished.) If the object is too large or too heavy or whatever, remove it in post. After all, it's "art"
Wheels Up for Seattle!
2 days ago