"The Leaf" - (please view large) original is in A2 poster-size

I like the general composition and would be interested to see the full scale image. One of the first 'issues' I noticed was the grainy background, which rather disallows the leaf from standing out to better advantage.

 

Also, I would have been interested to see a different background color... not so closely matched to the leaf, and cooler.

 

Congrats on POW! :)

I am truly the only person who has some issue with the streaky, blotchy, noisy, grainy look of the top third of this image? I see talk of "flawless", is this not a flaw somehow? If not, why not?

While interesting to look at, I think this is more of an affirmation of the current level of digital capture and manipulation. While I would agree that Juergen is an outstanding photographer, this "photo" is more similar to a variation of the artist's forte.

 

Kurt

Congratulations and nice picture. I love all that detail.

 

I've tried this before, scanning stuff, and have been happy with the results, however, as far as discussing this type of work, I don't see how it could help anyone to better their photography.

Compositionally, I am missing the stem.

 

WHO broke it off so short?

 

Technical magnificence cannot trump a compositional blunder (in my eyes).

The rules clearly state that no object should be more than 800 pixels on the long side. This image clearly exceeds this limit. I noted that only one image in this folder meets the criteria established for uploads. Was there a different rule in effect when this was posted? When rules change how does PN enforce them? I'll get off the soapbox now and give my opinion of the image...

The details of the scan are remarkable. The eye is forced to focus on them, as the color does not do anything for us. I prefer my photographs to be taken with a camera, not a scanner for the simple reason that the scanner is inert, it just sits there waiting to be fed something, and the image always comes out good. To use a camera requires quite a number of things to be done correctly, and thus on the magnitude of "easy to make the image" to difficult to make the image" I would say the camera is much more difficult to use. While this is not a discussion of scan versus click, I feel we should note that one requires skill, the other does not.

It is pleasing to the eye, but I do not feel compelled to look at it and study it all week as I have with many other POTW winners. I have seen the intricacy of nature in the veins of a leaf. Interesting for about 30 seconds. Now on to the other "photos."

Image stacking to enhance detail is widely used in digital astrophotography, and the technique applied here is an aesthetic application to great effect.

 

What can we learn from this and how can we better our photography? One thing that came to mind is to apply this technique to a live organic object, say a banana, using multiple exposure over 48 hours at 2 hour intervals. The ripening of the banada should produce some interesting aesthetic results.

 

Any takers?

"I am truly the only person who has some issue with the streaky, blotchy, noisy, grainy look of the top third of this image? I see talk of "flawless", is this not a flaw somehow? If not, why not?"

 

Another vote. I would have preferred a macro shot also, because it lacks natural suppleness. beautiful, but not ideal media.

IMHO a image well suited to a restaurant or a Doctors office,not very exciting, know matter what method was used,I'm not really impresssed!!!!

I love graphics art works, photographs, etc. But isn't this a photo forum with

cameras and lenses.

 

I am all for a graphics art forum and the great work that can be done, but, If

the title is Photo of the Week shouldn't the image have come from a

CAMERA?

 

Camera - photo - see the relationship?

'I am truly the only person who has some issue with the streaky, blotchy, noisy, grainy look of the top third of this image? I see talk of "flawless", is this not a flaw somehow? If not, why not?'

 

This would only be a flaw if it were unintentional. If Juergen intentionally created this effect then it's a creative decision. A creative decision that is worth discussing, but still not a flaw in my eyes.

 

The colors of this image appeal to me very much, but then I've always liked a monochrome approach. As has been noted the detail is fantastic. This is an opportunity to appreciate the beauty of nature in a very straightforward fashion, and I enjoy it. An image like this will never bee exciting, but it's not supposed to be. This is delicate. This is a whisper, not a shout.

Ben, I think anything manmade that captures an image can qualify as photography, just as anything manmade that flies qualifies as aviation. That's from the mouth of an amateur RC chopper enthusiast. :-)

I'm a big fan of making use of patterns in nature, but this doesn't strike me as an outstanding example. As a technical experiment/creation I think it's fine, but I'm a little baffled by the gushing reactions from some. What's the big deal about the resolution? Like nobody's ever done medium/large format close-ups of leaves before?

Great tones, texture and detail - on the leaf. Whether intentional or not, I find I am distracted by the "noise" of the background, particularly some of the minute color variations within. *Maybe* this was chosen as a means to bring out the finer details of the leaf, but nevertheless takes my eye away. Something simpler and more even in texture (not in lighting or color, mind you) like eggshell? I dunno, just throwing out an idea...

Let me first state that I think Juergen's portfolio is wonderful, and that he's obviously a very fine photographer who understands the photographic process.

But this is simply not a photograph. To me, a photograph requires a camera. Whether it be digital, film, pinhole, whatever...that's the required piece of equipment. This reminds me of people who make Xerox copies of their butts...or other private parts. Interesting and fun to look at, but not a photograph.

And it's not just the lack of the camera. What's missing is seeing the opportunity for a photograph, the act of taking the picture, choosing the subject & light, the f-stop, the shutter speed.

This picture, technically, is about interval/multiple exposure and image stacking. For someone that has dabbled in both techniques, I can speak to the dramatic results achievable in no other way.

 

Aesthetically, you'll have to see Juergen's A2 poster to truly appreciate the astonishing detail and near 3D appearance. I haven't seen the print, but having done similar work, I can speak to expected results with some authority.

 

How the image is acquired is far less important than extracting what's possible by applying the technique. And how many of us have even attempted anything similar? I'm sure Juergen didn't set out to make a Picture of the Week, but rather to experiment and share his findings as a channel to better his photography. To discover Juergen's high quality images shouldn't be a surprise to any of us, as it can only come from a willingness to attempt the unconventional - a lesson for those who believe a good shot is only one that comes out perfectly from a camera without further work. If you're still a nay-sayer, give it a try to see if you can do better! :-)

That's all well and good, Michael, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. It's a wonderful image...it's just not a photograph.

Photograph: A picture or likeness obtained by the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface by the action of radiant energy and especially light.

 

Since a Scanning CCD qualifies as a sensitized surface, this picture IS a photograph.

Promised myself I wouldn't wade in, but I guess I've got self-control problems...

 

I, too, upon first seeing "scanner art" some time ago, thought it wasn't really "photography." But let me try this thought: a scanner actually has a tremendous amount in common with a camera. It has a lens (even if it's just a flat piece of glass) and it has a capture medium (usually CCD) that isn't significantly different from the capture medium in digital cameras. Even if it doesn't have shutter speeds and f-stops, it has exposure controls. Using the light of the scanner is a choice, just as using natural or artificial light would be. He did choose a subject. Many traditional-seeming photographs have a lot of technical steps involved both pre- and post-exposure, so I'm not sure that takes this out of the running.

 

I'm not really trying to be contrary, but it's worth noting that debates about whether this is a "photograph" are much more about the semantics of defining what the word means than they are about creating an image. So, in other words, if you (Jim or anyone) choose to say that this isn't a "photograph", that's fine, but it would take quite an argument to sway anyone else, just as it would be difficult for me to imagine my argument above swaying the "traditionalists" (even though it has done so for some in the past).

 

Not my clearest writing, but hopefully that made some sense. Enjoy.

OK, Michael, technically it's a photograph. The missing ingredient here is the photographer, since one never needs to learn the basics of photography, or how to apply them to make this "photograph".

And my last comment is not to imply that Juergen is not a photographer.

You asked: "I am truly the only person who has some issue with the streaky, blotchy, noisy, grainy look of the top third of this image? I see talk of "flawless", is this not a flaw somehow? If not, why not?"

I think this is indeed one of the rare things that may appear as an imperfection to some. Personally, I don't think it's a flaw at all. As Bob said, being intended, it's an artistic decision, but now what is this decision worth? Here are a few thoughts...

1) The grain is not just at the top. Look carefully and you'll find it everywhere - though it does not appear everywhere the same way to the eye, due to the color difference between top and bottom.

2) If the top wasn't of a slightly different color, I believe the picture would be more monotonous.

3) I believe the color of the top has a symbolical meaning intended by the author - or at least that's how I percieve it myself. Meaning that nature is about living creatures that start of green and turn brown. The suggestion I see here is about aging...

Now there is one thought on my mind, based on a comment I read above. How would this leaf look like in a square format, with a lot more space around ? At first I thought it was a valid option, then I wasn't so sure anymore: after all, if it's a about details, it makes sense to get as close as possible to the leaf.

Richard, and others too, I'd be interested to hear a few opinions about other works by Juergen - the ones I posted links too or others.

I'm with Marshall to say that a scanner is certainly a lot closer from a modern camera than some would think, but then again, that's indeed a matter of definition; what I'm sure about, is that defining what is or isn't a photo is simply useless imo in the context of a POW discussion. Isn't there more to learn from or discuss about in Juergen's folder after all...? Regards.

Nice picture. Nice tones. Relaxing.

Something very different this week. This is a pleasing image with super fine details. It gives an impression of viewing a big piece of land from a satellite whereby the main river sidebranches into lots of small streams.

 

I don't think it advisable to view the image at "large". To fully appreciate an image on a monitor, it should be trimmed to best fitting the monitor length or width without resorting to "scrolling". It just loose the "IMPACT"! I would agree with Michael Chang that viewing this on a big poster is probably doing image best justice. I also agree with Marc that Square format is a better composition for this image.

 

To nitpick - i am distracted by the full stop at the bottom - it could have been handled better imo :)

At first sight, flat as a leaf (Catalpa leaf?), green on green (a bit sad green BTW), monotonous almost boring, no imperfection and no excitement as well...

But... hold on a minute and observe, just for one minute, and without winking, the leaf structure, you can see... it is not flat a all, it's a 3D picture, you almost have a vision of another leaf (a bit smaller) in superposition... following the whiter tiny 'streets' on the edge of the main leaf.

Congratulations for the POW, Juergen!! You deserve it! Although ... I would have bet and loose my pants that you'd get the POW with another picture of your portfolio, ... in my opinion one of the richest portfolio available on PNET at this very time. Richest by the variety of thema and subject, the variety of the technics and the quality of execution.