• 04-13-2012, 02:32 PM
    Greg McCary
    Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I see more and more photography with flares in them. Should they stay or go? I usually clone them but I kind of like these. I added an alternate take also minus person. Ok, added edit three..

    http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5040/6...798393d8_b.jpg
    Lake-Weiss-edit2 by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

    http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/7...2ecc071d_b.jpg
    Lake-Weiss-pano by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr

    http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/7...7c10e2fa_b.jpg
    lake-weiss-edit-2 by Cosmonaut's, on Flickr
  • 04-13-2012, 02:59 PM
    ELS
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Nice Greg! :thumbsup::)

    Thanks for sharing,

    Ed
  • 04-13-2012, 03:52 PM
    Ridgetop
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I don't think the flare helps the photo too much in this one. Personally, I'd say scrub it out. Also, IMO, the person in the first take pretty much makes the picture. The scene is beautiful, but the person adds life and a sense of depth that the second take really doesn't have. I just don't get a sense of awe in this one without the person, and it just isn't unique or attention grabbing enough to survive without the person. Of course, all just my opinion.
  • 04-13-2012, 04:40 PM
    Frog
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I'm with Ridgetop about the person....undecided about flare.
    Flare can be used creatively but sometimes it just ruins what might otherwise be a nice shot.
    It usually shows up via shooter error.
    Did you deliberately get the flare or was it an exposure dilema?
  • 04-13-2012, 04:43 PM
    Greg McCary
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Thanks Ridgetop, thanks Frog. No the flares were not added. I added a third edit for comparison.
  • 04-13-2012, 09:13 PM
    llewpics
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I really like the scene and the overall feel of the photo. I think I like the one with the person and no flare the best. Good shot.
  • 04-14-2012, 05:22 PM
    Greg McCary
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Thanks iiewpics, I guess the last one is the One.
  • 04-14-2012, 06:26 PM
    armando_m
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Greg, I like it better with no flare, and including the person
  • 04-14-2012, 07:38 PM
    Adamo
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Agreed! Person yes, flares no
    Great images
  • 04-14-2012, 08:32 PM
    hminx
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I like the composition with the person and no flare but the sky looks a little strange, did you add a gradient in PP ?
  • 04-14-2012, 09:30 PM
    jetrim
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I think in this particular case the flare is working against you as it's not prominent enough to be an artistic statement. I have included flares successfully in the past, but it's damn tricky to get it just the way you want it and you end up with a bunch of worthless frames until you get everything dialed in just right. Easier to add in post processing if you really want them. Filter>Render>lens flare in photoshop
  • 04-15-2012, 01:57 AM
    Greg McCary
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Thanks Adamo, Thanks Pete I did nothing the the sky. I adjusted the WB some. I'll see what I can do with it maybe cool it down or change the tint.
    Thanks Jet, the flares are gone.
  • 04-15-2012, 07:53 AM
    zxkqyy
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by armando_m View Post
    Greg, I like it better with no flare, and including the person

    I also like
  • 04-27-2012, 06:33 PM
    Kiwi3007
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    A great shot and the edit only improved it more. The aditional contrast really helps the rocks and the background. As for the flare, while I do this they work in some pictures I feel as though they need more of a staring role and I'm not sure these have that, they just distract from everything else which is great about the picture.
  • 04-30-2012, 08:56 AM
    Alexandre da Veiga
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ridgetop View Post
    the person in the first take pretty much makes the picture. The scene is beautiful, but the person adds life and a sense of depth that the second take really doesn't have. I just don't get a sense of awe in this one without the person, and it just isn't unique or attention grabbing enough to survive without the person

    Exactly.
    Maybe if we have not seen the one with the man, the one without the man would not seem so empty.
  • 05-08-2012, 11:15 AM
    nonggame
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I also think I like no-flare better, but I like both with and without the man. I think they look good in different ways.
  • 05-09-2012, 03:07 PM
    xystren
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    If I had to answer the question, it would be only be "in" if your JJ Abrams <LOL> That's one of my only complaints about his movies - just toooo much dang lens flare.

    In this set, my preference is without the len flair, but even the small amount that is in there, it's not overwhelming or overly distracting - so really, either one works (with a small preference with the non flaired)

    Like some of the previous posts, the with and without the person, each have their unique strengths. I appreciate the untouched by humans, yet also appreciate the human subject matter.
  • 05-09-2012, 09:21 PM
    GB1
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I always look upon them as an undesirable side effect. I do like the dramatic effect of shooting nearly into the sun or having the sun in the corner. So, I prefer the last shot :)
  • 05-13-2012, 05:08 AM
    Bobintx
    Re: Are Flares the "IN" thing?
    I agree also Person yes - Flares no