The Bells

Mission San Juan Capistrano

A Spanish mission in Southern California founded 1776

 If you change an image are you being true or distorting reality ?

For me it’s about what I see and how I interpret it sort of a vision, sometimes I get it right and others incredibly wrong.

What are your thoughts ?

Mission Bells Before

Mission Bells Before

This is the original shot of the Bells


46 thoughts on “Interpretation

  1. I love the sepia toned one! And thanks for the blast from the past, I used to live in San Juan Capistrano and this brought back some nice memories!

  2. I like the sepia tone as well. I don’t edit my images. Mostly because it just doesn’t occur to me. I try to capture my vision as best I can on my cell phone, and, occasionally, such as when I do sepia or B&W, on my little Vivitar. Some days I’m more successful than others. I’ll have to try the editing. It looks like fun!

    • Thank You Margarita
      I don’t always get it right either, but you are right not all shots need editing but it is fun just playing around with the picture


  3. No doubt that the sepia toning works way better. The color information detracts from the original shot, especially the red ropes. I really like the final result. Great job!

  4. I like your interpretation. I think there is a lot more distinction in your interpretation. You can see the clouds. There’s more depth. In short, I think it’s really good. Thanks for the like of my post “Bird in Flight”.

  5. I think what you put out there for all to see should follow your vision, whatever that may be…and it can change between the shooting and the final tweek. Sometimes I want to show what’s there, the perfect picture postcard and other times I prefer a more artsy look, or somewhere in the middle. No one technique is correct when the photo is a reflection of the photograhers heart and mind. I do like the original, it show well the reality of the place, but I would hand the final version on my wall…beautifully interpreted.

  6. An original unchanged image is one’s interpretation anyway (angle, time of day, lens, composition, included / excluded etc etc). I’ll go with interpretation. I agree with some comments that it would be great in black and white.

    • Thank You
      I Might do the Black and white and Place on the Photo Page Just to see waht it would be like.

      Thank for your comment


  7. Very intelligent question! I did experiment a bit with this. Took the ‘RAW’ and a complete flat profile … truth is, most pictures become boring (flat). They look like, you know, just … reality, nothing ‘special’. Which is true. Reality by its nature is not ‘special’, it is ‘just reality’.

    Now if you take a picture you can give the plain ol’ reality a twist. Contrast, Sepia, Black&White, whatever … things which reality can’t do for you. So yes, just go ahead and make that picture, and tweak it into perfection. I don’t think reality will mind. Perhaps reality is even proud that you, the photographer makes it even more nice … who knows;)

    — Max

  8. Both pictures are nice, but the sepia is a little better I think. I disagree with what was said above about reality. I think reality (which is really how our eyes and minds process reality) is in many ways better than what you can capture with your camera. Our eyes can adjust for high contrast, see in 3D and perform other miracles, whereas once you capture it on film or digitally, it can only be displayed as a 2 dimensional representation. Also, with digital, if you do no editing you are settling for a soft image that has noise. There is something called an anti-aliasing filter that softens the image. Noise is like grain was in film but doesn’t look nearly as cool as grain does; it looks ugly in fact. You have to at least sharpen and do some noise reduction to have a decent image. Adding contrast, along with other techniques, helps to add back in some depth that you lost when you captured the picture. Of course you can easily overdo things while editing, but most editing is really a process of bringing the depth and sharpness of a scene back into the photo. You added toning to this image, so that’s one example of how you can depart from reality during editing. But everybody interprets the scene they captured in their own way, no right or wrong. I view editing a digital image just like I viewed developing in the film days. No way I would want to show somebody my negatives. Images needed to be developed then, and they still need to be developed today.

    • Well said
      Thank you for your in depth comment. Its an interesting subject with many different opinions.


  9. When you change a picture sometimes you are distorting reality and sometimes you are tweaking for the reality you actually saw. A digital capture can be different in color or depth than what the eye took in. I agree with the above perspective that the digital capture is your negative and the digital software is your darkroom. When I began digital photography I did have a guilty sense that photoshop was cheating. But, it did not take long to realize that digital software and digital captures go hand in hand. One does not make sense without the other. The thing to remember is that photography is an art from the moment you decide where to stand and what you choose to frame up with your viewfinder. You can distort reality by what you leave out or include in your viewfinder framing/capture. So sometimes its reality meaning pure capture with no clean up like removing the beer can off the beach of our seascape or cloning out an errant branch and sometimes its artistic interpretation. And, both have their place. But, I put my vote with art!

    Mostly just have fun enjoy. Right at your desktop you can do more with your pictures than ever inspires. I still remember having to beg and cajole just to get a camera shop to crop a picture and wanting to do artistic things to pictures and not having the facility to do so.

    • Well said and explained Judy
      I think the key is as you said just have fun and enjoy what you are creating.


  10. Whatever the eye sees, is already interpreted reality. Whatever the camera shows is different from the real. An artist has to reshape reality in such a way as to evoke the emotion he or she wants to bring to the viewer.

      • And as I can see California! I had two photo exhibition there 2012 and 2013 at Modesto and Castro Valley. Next Septmeber I let you know 🙂
        Yes America includes the whole world! ( sorry for mistakes in writing. Mother language is greek 🙂 )

  11. Pingback: Tribute to Ajaytao2010 | Michael Wilson

Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s