"Narcissa"

no this image is barely photoshopped whatsoever^^^ just thought i'd let you know... but

thank you for the compliment as I often am going for the "wtf that must be fake" kind of

reaction.... and sure the subject matter is a bit cheesy, but honestly when someone says

"here photograph these wings and i'll give you money" .. i do what i gotta do...

 

this was shot on a canon 20-d (as i did not have a wide enough lens for my mamiya, which

was sadly sitting unused next to me) 17-85 (i think...) mm canon lens

 

regarding technical issues that people pointed out:

i see no problems with the lighting...

the color is a bit bland on this version (it seems i uploaded an early retouch job that was

not properly finished...) print version has more vibrant color and increased the DOF in

photoshop...

 

thank you for your comments

I would definitely add more the mud to the dress, more dark branches and more rippled distortion in the reflection. Maybe make the sky darker and increase the cross over of blue/yellow in the fabrics. Kinda going toward Maxfield Parish, but darker psychologically. Really nice... t

If you want to see how it should be done check out www.campariusa.com/ then find the posters section and look for Mathew Rolston 2005 (not the one with the elephant). Sorry it is a flash site so there is no direct link, at least none that I found.

 

About the photo, David points out that this is perhaps not the final version. I don't think that much was gained by shooting on location. I believe it would have been much easier to do in a studio. I was also wondering if angels are really allowed to have bad hair days. I would like to see her face in there somewhere (maybe in the reflection). I think a painted background would have worked better in this instance somewhat like photos by Loretta Lux. It is fantasy after all, so why stop short of the mark? I think that all angel wing photos should be banned (at least the bad ones) but if people are willing to pay to have them made then who are we to argue? Hey are those turkey feathers?

 

I am not wild about the pose which makes the subjects hand and arm look rather stumpy. There is an entire art to posing in order to make the subject appear closer to the ideal.

Most simply stated, I love the top part... it's exquisite and incredibly well done. Wish I could say the same for the bottom reflection. Would prefer a different reflection compositon or no reflection at all. But again, the angel is beautiful. I'll view some more thru the week and try to come to terms with the entire composition. Congrats on POW! -Greg-

Good creativity and effort! A little soft focus to add a dream like and shallow DOF BG would make already great photo. At least from my point of view. Keep shooting, perhaps you might have the chance to shoot the real one someday.. Salute!!

David

 

Most of those who get POWed probably feel it's an honour they could do without.

 

I looked at your other photos and see that the picture was made to promote the girl who makes the angel wings. (What's she put in her passport - "Angel-maker"?) Maybe we should take that into account - I was looking at it as an art photo, but it's not meant to be.

 

As a promo for the heavenly-being-maker...the more emphasis you can get on the wings the better, (I guess). The lighting is nice and warm and slightly aetherial, which is good. I'd still be caerful of the muddy robe, tho.

 

Anyway, basic point: we should look at the photo as a commercial promo for the wing maker, not as a fine art shot.

 

(POW actually stands for Prisoner of the Week, you know :-).

Very good lighting. But I don't like that she is sitting on mud and her cloth is soiled. You wanted to create fantasy, but the muddy puddle just ties the whole scene to a "dirty" reality.

f stop f/22?

You wrote: "I was looking at it as an art photo, but it's not meant to be."

 

I think, that 75% of all photonetters could have written just the same. I have learned, that on photo.net, most folks think, that if it ain't art, it ain't good. Most people here also think, that all photography must be art.

 

And once again at photo.net, advertising photography walks to the big trash destroyer in a trash bin gown. :-)

Unless demonstrated clearly that the photographer made a mistake - or lied - in his technical details, I see no reason why I shouldn't trust the photographer. The photographer checked photo.net's "non-manipulated" box. He even mentionned specifically after that, that his picture wasn't manipulated. So I don't understand comments like "nice computer graphics" and "over-photoshopped". I would appreciate, and certainly the same goes for the photographer, that those who think this picture was heavily manipulated demonstrate that it was manipulated.

 

I must say that seeing this beautiful reflection, at this size, I first thought it was PSed. Then had a closer look and saw it didn't seem to be the result of a manipulation. Or at least, if the water was manipulated, I couldn't say for sure it was. So I concluded that it was probably an unusually nice - and real - water reflection. Everything else, I'm sure, could be done without Photoshop.

 

So why exactly are we still talking about manipulations ? Could the photographer perhaps explain in a clearer manner what exactly was performed in Photoshop ?

Extra-ordinary. A great Work of a person who knows what to do with the camera and the computer. He is a master of sense, imagination, creativity and execution. Excellent and wonderful work. Truely David deserve this.

By the way, what made me believe that the water was real water - besides the fact that I couldn't see any sure sign of filter effects - was the reflected hand.

 

You will notice that the reflected hand is at a different angle than the original hand, as it should be in the real world. A flipped hand wouldn't look this way; it would look just like the real hand, but flipped. Most of the waters created in PS from a flipped original are actually illogical reflections. Of course, saying that this reflection isn't a flip of the top part of the picture does not mean that there was no other manipulation to "modify" the water texture or such. But at least, it is clear to me, that there was real water there, and that a real reflection was the basis of this image.

David, very well done, excellent and bravo!. I dont agree with most of the 'negative' points mentioned above. About the sheet in the trees, well, I'd prefer to see it as part of the angel (sort of helper wings). As for the muddy surroundings, GOOD, this shows her clients that even without a glamourous environment, youll look like an angel. The reflection is beautifull. Praise for the excellent technique. Those who said 'better do it in P.S.', mwahahaha, then she would have preffered to hire a painter or a DTP pro. No, she hired a photographer, and a darn good one. This, as an add, shows that a angel will look pretty, regardless of a little stain or her surroundings. You accomplisched that with excellent lighting a.k.a. photography, the recording of light. Enjoy having a masterfull image to be proud of and most likely a very happy client. Cheers!

This photograph really is the best choice to be the photograph of the week...this master piece is perfect from every aspect.like lighting,mood,creativity,beauty,attraction,tone of colors,the body language of the subject etc.

For me this is an excellant photo - and truely inspires ideas in others. Perhaps there are ways people could improve it - I wish them good luck in doing so and still managing the scene in the same way.

 

A good photo to me should capture an essence which makes you feel like you want to be there in the picture as well... well done. I also like many of your other photos...

 

[Perhaps one day I will get around to sorting out my portfolio so I too could be a prisoner for a week]

" I would definitely add more the mud to the dress, more dark branches and more rippled distortion in the reflection."

 

I'm guessing you thought my comment way above was wrong huh? hahahaha...

I like it better small sized, I don't like the reflection it's too unreal, overdone it should be darker. And the backlit on the wings it made them look like they were photoshoped, I will decrease it.

 

That said it's impressive.

I think you did a wonderful job on this photo! The only bummer is that she got part of her dress dirty, but that's easily fixed.

 

Point of order: in the Bible, angels are always male and are never described as having wings. Who knows where the whole winged beauty thing started...but it's still pleasing to the eye, especially in this case!

 

For all you non-Photoshop types...get a life. It seems that the same people that look down on Photoshop have no problem with "pushing" an exposure in the darkroom or otherwise "compensating" for something that didn't happen at the moment of exposure. Hypocrites. Besides, Photoshop is as much an art form as photography will ever be. I for one am thankful they can go hand-in-hand.

I cant stress enough that this image has not been "over-photoshopped".. some levels,

curves, and maybe a little clone stamp... thats it. period.

 

for the DOF naysayers... i read something along the lines of "why is it f22?" .... well.. its not

this image was taken @ f5.6... but since we all know that aperture AND focal length

determines your DOF, the sharp background could not be avoided (this image was shot

@18mm... that reflection is a PUDDLE, not a lake...)

 

i say again, the final print version has a blurrier background, and i think we even cleaned

up the mud on the dress a little...

Welcome to PN David and congrats for the POW.You will find yourself feeling like a prisoner by the end of the week but I am sure you can deal with it!

 

Like others I like many things about this image especially that superb light but I also think this photo lends itself to a 'darker ambience'to put it over the fence into fantasy land as was suggested before.Because the light is so good I almost think that less detail would be beneficial perhaps in masking some of the distracting elements that take away from your subject matter.

 

I would lean towards a more etheral appearance and maybe even suggest the good AND evil that coexists within mankind by darkening the shadows but but still keeping the lovely highlights as you have here.I realize you took this image for a reason but I see more possibles that might be fun to experiment with. I have done some work on your image but will not upload without your say so David.

 

Take this post as a compliment for the fact that your image is worth the time and effort and is a great foundation to build on.

The picture does not have a dreamy enough quality for my taste - the image is too sharp, too realistic. A perfect subject for heavy color and texture PS modifications. I am certain that you have been inspired by pre-raphaelite and high baroque paintings, but IMHO your job is not yet finished.

 

Congratulations for the work.

set photo:

This girl wings loading is obviously insufficient, moreover such clothing will hinder the flight...

WOW! I don't give many 7/7s but this gets one. I agreee that the subject matter wanders into dogs playing poker territory, but since it's made at a customers request, one can't complain. I do find the hand by the breast a bit off ... other than that, perfect. Love the reflection, love the tree, love the drape, love the pose, love the lighting, love the mud on the dress. Absolutely outstanding.

PS: I bet it would be fun to shoot her workshp also ... that must be interesting. A professional wingmaker! Who knew?