I am beginning dislike the look that I originally loved about those artists' works. The blue sky is photoshopped into place. When shooting infrared, even when one manages to "properly" white balance the foliage to turn white, the sky remains amber. It is by switching the red and blue channels in photoshop that the photographer achieves the blue sky. Examples below (of images I've shot):
 |
original (white balanced) |
 |
red and blue channels swapped |
 |
original (white balanced) |
 |
red and blue channels swapped |
Photographing infrared light already embraces the notion of other-worldly photography, what is the point of making the images "more realistic"? I do understand that maybe it is to put it into terms that the "common people" can understand, but when you go through the effort of setting up your equipment to capture this non-realistic looking imagery, going back and trying to "fix" it by making it look closer to what we're all used to seeing is really just clinging to what is familiar instead of going out on a limb and really exploring the depths of something completely foreign. Hurray for run-on sentences, I know.
This having been said, I do enjoy the visual dialog between the two color aesthetics of the same image when placed side by side. I am currently playing with the notion of a "mirror world" sort of visual.
 |
obvious mirror reference |
 |
could make an interesting poster
(can flip either way) |
I rather like the vertical diptych, and will print one off 18x24 to bring in for critique. I feel this may be the direction I will end up taking this project.