Just out of curiosity, and without going back to look, which image (A or B) was displayed on 6/60/09?

  (You need to Login or Register should dump you in slideshow mode. Select loop and hit play to toggle between the two looks. If that fails or gets confusing,   (You need to Login or Register

Since there is no actual "real" in this case:
Which one do you feel looks more "real" as in what you'd actually see if you were standing there when it was taken? Which way would you remember it?

I belive that look "A" was displayed.  

For me, I believe that look "B" is more real.  The reason is because the light is much warmer in look "B" vs. "A".

Either way, I do think it is a very cool picture.

I thought it was A, but I can't decide on most "real." -Tom

Well, B was the one that was used, but I am still trying to figure out what date would be 6/60/09.   ::)  That really did puzzle me--I missed that day completely!!

I would remember B, with the warm light.  That is always the way I remember firelight.  The cool light doesn't look real to me.

Can't say which was originally displayed, but B looks more "real" to me. Nice shot, by the way.

Long exposure / night shots are tricky to tone, especially with fires as a light source. If you can change white balance settings, try using "tungsten" mode to take night shots. It brings out the blues, and softens the warm glows from fires, sodium lights, etc. Not everyone likes it, but I've spent countless hours shooting under moonlight, it's always worked for me.

Some examples of my tungsten shots:

  (You need to Login or Register
  (You need to Login or Register
  (You need to Login or Register
  (You need to Login or Register

I was inspired to try it by one of my photographic heroes, who shoots tungsten slide film. With the slides, the added blue affect is quite dramatic, but with digital, it's just enough to balance everything out.

  (You need to Login or Register

Of course, shooting in tungsten mode doesn't eliminate the need for post-processing, but it makes toning a lot easier. In my opinion, it leaves you with more room to play around, so long as everything is properly exposed.

DOH! 6/20/09 -Sorry.

I'm liken this so far.

There is no right or wrong answer on what feels right.
  "...can't tell the difference or don't care - just wanna be there" would be acceptable answers too.

It seems after spending a good portion of my professional life arguing color on different things at an accurate 5000K viewing (box back when art directors needed something tangible and right they could take to a printer and say match it or try again) has skewed my objectivity a bit and, I'm afraid, perhaps my perception.

As I revisited this shot this morning it made me think about that and I don't want to sway any future answers so I'll shut up hoping for additional responses.

"B" looks more realistic to me.

I like "B"
The warm glow seems more realistic too me.

A looks real...BUT I like B. What does that say about me?

different white balance settings?

A looks like an unnatural light source (lamp) although a somewhat "cleaner" picture while it's almost like you can feel the warmth from B. Either way, I really liked the shot(s).

I like the warmth of the B shot but in both shots I miss the crispness of the flame as in your 6/12/09 campfire shot.  I'm guessing this is the result of a longer exposure time.

terp

All really good observations so far, except I cheated and replaced the original (A) with the one I reprocessed for someone (B) before I posted this. After removing whatever that thing that was in the foreground I made it look like what I expected would be considered more generally pleasing - tone/shade color wise.

To my mind, A is closer to, but not reality. B - well, it's kind-of candy colored, sugar coated.... I think reality in this case (because it was really such a small fire that it could exist on the same exposure as the stars) would come closer to nearly black and white. The flame terp mentioned was way bigger than any in this fire over the minute it took to it build a usable exposure.

Still, I know every one of you has an idea in your own minds of what a fire should look like no matter what you see. Within reason, your mind will make it fit your perception of reality.

That's my perception of reality for this shot as it's not reality in any objective sense of the word. It's more a piece of that big, fat, generous slice of time that's colored by memory and experiences.

Burrrp!

I'd love to hear additional thoughts from anyone still reading. Don't be afraid, there is no line like this one. Not in this case anyway->   (You need to Login or Register

I like B.  I recognized that A was the original because of the distracting object in the foreground.

Now for the debate.  And as I'm getting into digital photography this is something that's going through my thoughts anyway.  My daughter and I have been enjoying doing some waterfall photography using filters to get slow shutter speeds.  My father grumps about our photos not being "real", and "not a moment in time".  I've also been experimenting with HDR the last couple of days.  For anyone who, like me a few days ago, doesn't know what HDR photography is here is a brief explanation- in photos with large differences in light it is impossible to take a single photo and correctly expose all areas.  For many years landscape photographers would use graduated neutral density filters for compositions with a straight line light/dark issue.  Actually, they still use ND filters and I'm thinking about ordering a couple. But there are programs out now that allow you to take three/ five shots or more on a tripod all at different exposures and the program then melds the best areas of all the shots into a photo in which all the areas are exposed properly.  My perception is that this is and will make for a rather large change in photography.  The photos do not look real at all yet I find them fascinating and beautiful.

So one has to ask the question of what is real?  No photography is real.  It's all a method of trying to capture the three dimensional world we see on a flat two dimensional surface.  And what we "see" is light and reflected light bouncing off objects in our world.  A photo is ink on paper (or pixels of light on a screen) attempting to recreate that scene.  So my father's argument over our photos is that the ink on the paper doesn't represent what he "sees" when he's at the waterfall.  True.  But, that doesn't mean it isn't "real".  It's just as real as the fast shutter speed photo that stops each drop of water in the air.  We don't see the waterfall that way either do we?  Well, I could go on with this but I suspect most of you lost interest several sentences back. :)

So, to sum up my thoughts.  I like B.  If your goal is to try to create an image that most represents what the scene looked like when you were there only you can make that call.  For the rest of us it doesn't matter at all what the scene looked like then because we weren't there.  All that matters to us is the ink on paper (or pixels on our screen).  I lean to the photography as art side.  I want the image to evoke the feelings of wilderness, bring back the smell of the smoke, the sounds of the crackling fire and wind working through the pine branches above.  If B does that for me better than A then why not?  When you were there the visual was only one of your senses taking in the moment.  If you can boost the visual a little to help folks extrapolate the rest a little better...

I think you should.

B.

A looks green to me, B looks red. Since it's summer and under a pine, I'll go with A. Some balance between to two would be nice, warm up the A some.

I appreciate the exchange as I'm always interested in opinions on things that once fit nicely in the can (pack?) that somehow now doesn't close properly after some new item is added.

Too green/red ... I agree but the middle is even less satisfying.

I'm reading about what I expected with a lot of varied responses being what I consider to be dead nuts on. (Dead nuts on was once a very technical photographic term don't cha know. ;))

o_p_s - I agree that the HDR gimmick has a certain look. I don't mean to be harsh - gimmick just seems a good descriptive word to me at the moment. I can see a place for it just like the 4 stop range printers wanted and all but one art directors I knew poo-pooed those efforts. I don't know, we all have expectations on what's required and how things should be and people like to push the envelope when they can and that's a fine thing - to a point. Stopping there because all the numbers are within range w/o additional tweaking would be a mistake unless that's the look you want IMO.

Somehow I think that what a fire should look like has become part of our collective DNA by now and won't be changing anytime soon. Then again, anyone seen a friend's TV where the color isn't way over saturated?

Kodachrome went away recently. It was a nasty process chemical wise from what I understood and I always got E-6 processing for free yet I'd shoot Kodachrome on trips until Velvia came along. "... Give us the dre-eeams of Summer ... make all the World a Sunny Day oh ya" BTW - I have a 4x5 Polaroid back in really good condition. Anyone interested?