The Great Sand Sea - X, Siwa, West Egypt

To clarify: No one objected to manipulation in general (let's grant that we all manipulate our images to some degree). Rather, questions were raised about the aesthetic outcome of certain particular manipulations of this particular image. These are legitimate questions that can contribute to our understanding of what makes a good photograph.

Yes, Anders has identified how what troubles me about the image troubles me when he refers to a "contradiction" in the converging perspectives with the result of "discomfort of vision". I am pleased to know just what it was that wasn't working for me. Thank you Anders. I think this means the image has been worth discussing however and I thank Simon for having posted it. Thank you elves.

Anders, I understand-sorry, at first I thought I was seeing a sand and feathers montage.

 

I agree with Marc regarding the light, I looked before David's comment and after and really

don't see a conflict in the light direction either.

 

Manipulation is a wonderful thing. It allows us to express ourselves and how we feel

about things. Here, I am sure there has been significant work done and I do agree with

Hips that you rarely visually see such blank shadows in reality. I don't know that that

matters, but it does give us a baseline for looking at things and evaluating what

manipulation has been done.

 

No one has really mention any color issues here, so I will raise one again. It has to do with

the ridges in the black area. These seem to have lost all of the warmth and do, as Anders

observed, move these to the sense of cold steel. Shadows do pick up cool tones from the

skylight, but in low light one normally expects a considerable warming to take place on

strongly lit surfaces, which

has disappeared here. I think that this result is another one of those little things that

causes me a disconnect with the image and wonder to what end this was done.

 

I think when we manipulate an image, as said before, we do have to know why and to what

end we are doing such work. Here, as I said before, this has no roots Simon's portfolio, so

I really can't go there to find a reason or to get my bearing as to why these things have

been done or why this photo is presented this way--what is Simon trying to say here.

Obviously, from this, I didn't pick it up from this image on its own. So I am back where I

was yesterday, just looking at a graphic. Odd that someone should say wallpaper, as it

was one of my first thoughts-would this work as a wallpaper design.

very interesting notes being made here (let alone the manipulation thing). But to make a long story short, don't want to know the way it was created: I like it. I like its harsh contrasts, its cold and warm feeling, its "design" and perspective. I like the frame too. It's...hard rock to me.

To not want to know what went into the making of this image is to not care about capture vs creation and ultimately photography versus graphic design. As a fellow photographer, don't you want to know what he saw?

 

Beyond that, I like to view photographs with an eye towards understanding how the scene was rendered according to normal processing procedures, ie, contrast, color correction, framing, etc. It's reasonable to ask if I'm wasting my time here.

Sorry if I was confusing. A picture is worth....

 

Looking at this again, in addition to the lighting, I think the 2nd background pattern gives away the montage. Its ripples are larger than the closer dune. I like this aspect--the background jumps out and pulls the viewer in. Good job there. The direction of the background ripples opposes the primary left to right flow. Good stuff.

Some more graffiti for you.... This is what I would like to see from the foreground--something that takes the viewer from the bottom right into the upper middle. That way the viewer has an alternate path through the scene. This would create more interest.

 

All I'm saying is pick another dune, take a shot that leads to the point I've highlighted and paste it there. It would be a stronger photo IMO.

I still don't see the light conflict--it is coming from above right-look at the

highlights on the foreground dunes and the shadow fall off on both sets. The patterns

don't seem to be at odds to me either. When you have high spots and valleys, the air can

be turbulent and add to that just the perspective of where the shooter is and you can get

things that maybe don't read as you might think, although this hasn't been an issue for

me. I am attaching a grossly done shdw/hglght adjustment to show at least what appears

to me

to be the connector shadow slope to the middle ridge.

 

It is what is presented and it should be looked at in terms of all those

things you mentioned. Sometimes it is worth discussing those things as a focal point and

sometimes it is just how the image ends up and maybe some issues become subordinate

to others. This is a nice graphic I guess, but I don't think it has legs and will lose its power

quickly, although it was very quickly for me. There just doesn't seem to be anything more

than the resultant graphic here.

I like how tight the discussion is this week...I mostly agree with Marc G's first comment. I too find myself thinking about nature's patterns and in this sense the image is successful. I am somewhat reminded of a nautiloid shell pattern in the repetition of the sand waves and conical shape. I think simon skillfully captured his subect in an opportunate moment. The result works for me so I find the manipulation discussion irrelevent in this case. I never put a picture on a wall without it being matted and framed so the digital frame is no intrusion for me. I usually generate those kinds of frames myself. I don't believe it's a cheap trick and doesn't modify the nature of the image, if done tastefully - and taste is a personal matter in general.

We are all interested in how other photographers work and how they are able to create photos, but it is as everybody would agree only one side of any serious discussion on the quality of a photo. In my view the problem is often that we often limit ourselves to an engineering approach and have much less words and methods for discussing the artistically quality of the photo. Both capture and creation are important as you say yourself. However, I?m not with you when ask the question whether I don?t care about "what the photographer saw". For me what we have in front of whether it is sand, light, water, cables or something else is less important. For me, what I would like to see in such almost abstract composition is a communication of what the artist/photographer try to transmit to the viewer. However in this case I don?t get the message, and what I see is not something that catches my attention. I?m not sure I?m interested in making the effort because the photo falls apart in contradictions that don?t seem to include a message: black/beige; hard metal/soft sand; composition in the right side of the frame/black emptiness in the upper right side. In my view, all together an artistically and graphical mess.

 

The present POW is obviously a good basis for our discussion but if I were Simon and had his photographical skills I would feel offended of this choice among so many magnificent photos that we all can find in his portfolio. Go and admirer "***", , a portrait of a half naked lady in blue silk and lace, or "Dies Irae" of a small bored girl and leader suitcase (both new spectacular uploads of his) or his photo, "the memory of water" portrait of another very expressive naked lady. One could mention tens of tens of very beautiful photos shared by Simon, but this one just does not work, at least for me.

I disagree that a photograph should necessarily convey a meaning or a message. Its aesthetics alone may in fact be sufficient to please. A message is a bonus. I'm wondering if emotions even need to be evoked?

 

Theoretically, an aesthetically pleasing image should be able to please because of its geometrical attributes alone, due to some fundamental physical properties (perception of form, symmetry, etc.).

 

But because we are beings that feel and think, can this truly be achieved? Is aestehtic virtue overshadowed by our inherent complexity?

David, there is no light conflict. Perhaps you've succomed to the dog and his/her bone factor -- ya know how sometimes (oh my god, the bone is right there) the normal function (I can almost touch it) of a canine is (the smell of stale protein, oh lord help me) severely disrupted by a dominating brain pattern. But anyway, I'd be willing to bet that the physical properties of light and optics have not taken a vacation in this image.

 

Sometimes our nits are like bones in this respect in that they can take over and flood our minds and seem real important. Generally though, the result is that our thoughts, so informed, are mostly all wet.

 

Speaking of dogs, and perhaps just as relevant here, "Fault judging" in dog conformation contests is a good example of the whole dog/bone concept, and is dissapproved of. Fault judging is essentially spotting a fault and allowing the fault to dominate one's "objective" assessment. I think the reason this sort of judging is poo-pooed so much is that it stresses fractions instead of wholes. After all, if one is going to fairly judge based on one or two articulations--like items on a list--then, to be fair, all (or nearly all) items which constitute the whole need to be articulated.

 

------

 

Carl, I don't know where you shop, but an accent line on a real velvet elvis is highly unlikely. They're simply too difficult to render on velvet with oil-based pigments.

 

Generally, what you find are hand carved wooden frames.

 

Of course, I am speaking of hand painted velvet elvises, Not those cheesy silkscreened ones.

 

------

 

Finally (and I know this doesn't add a thing to this critique discussion), I am actually pleased (no, relieved) the !!YELLOW-BROWN!! ice is gone.

oops, I meant "succumbed"

Mathieu, I can assure you that I agree fully with you. When I used the word "message" it was not in the sense of "for or against the war", or "rising tides" or "just before the storm" type of messages but what has been named the "hyper-vision" of reality (Stieglitz's cloud series). This photo does not transmit any "message" in that broad sense of the term. Nothing has changed after I have looked at it. I'm not wiser, more happy, more experienced or looking forward for new sentiment af the same kind. I would not advise Simon to go back and take another photo of the same dunes where he solves the problem of the black holes.

 

I don't even think that I'm interested in getting involved in whatever esthetical feelings other seem to experience when viewing this photo. It leaves me cold. Try to contemplate Simonﾒs "Dies Irae" of a small girl and you will see what "message" of aesthetical joy a photo of the same photographer can transmit. It can certainly be done in graphical work or abstract compositions too, but it is not the case here, in my humble view. I might of course be toitally wrong !

I find this photograph to be a delight. Like Anders, my eye was initially tricked into

thinking that the background dunes were metal cables. And then I read Simon's wonderful

caption. The Great Sand Sea. Of course. Waves of light and sand, stirred by wind.

Sculptures etched by air as some sand particles stand fast and stubborn while others

accommodate and give in to the retreat. This is the push and pull of oceans, deserts, life.

 

Moreover, I find Simon's rendition powerfully presented in near-abstract format. I like the

boldness of the graphic clarity. To use a frightful baseball analogy, it is like a fastball up in

the zone. There is no nibbling here.

 

Thank you, Simon, for a wonderful piece of work. And thank you, elves, for an interesting

pick.

What suddenly hit me was that the background dunes can be read in two ways when it comes to light. Depending on how you look at it you can either see the light as coming from the lower left or as coming from the upper right. We can't really see the ripples in profile along the (supposed?) crest of the dune, which would make it clear what is up and what is down. Lacking that, I am more inclined to see the light as coming from the upper right, but I can easily see how someone else would see it as coming from the lower left.

Works due to the strong graphic nature of image. Very striking. Cheers.

My initial impression was of tire tracks rather than of steel cables - then of receding dunes. It is certainly a very tidy and graphic construction. In some ways too formal for me to really enjoy. Looking closely I see no contradictions in terms of the direction of the light - I see it coming from the top right everywhere. It is one of things though that I think can flip, and what one person sees as a rise anoher sees as a dip. I do think the background ripples are pasted in - they have essentially an identical pattern to the central ripples. They are just enlarged slid to the left a bit and rotated slightly. In that sense I see it as a montage rather than as a straight capture of nature. I think at that moment my interest really wanes - not because I don't like manipulation and montages but because it becomes less suprising and I judge it using different criteria.

I like the color of the sand and the pattern in it. That is about it. After that I find the picture irritating because I am trying to figure it out. It seems like a photo landscape mixed with another abstract media which is virtually all in darkness. There is also tension as the lines move toward one corner. Overal all, the image did catch my attention, but not for long. I think this image would be far more relaxing on the eyes if there was some shadow detail, or at least enough to let us know what is going on. I know it is the shadow side of the sandune, but too much is left out making you wonder. I wonder more about the darkness then the lit side, making it imbalanced. Although an interesting image, I would never buy one, only because it is hard on the eyes. I prefer something easier to look at, a complete image. I don't mind abstract, but I like the idea of being able to see more then a large section of total darkness. To me the there is no landscape (only on the one side), the rest is uncomfortable, nothing to really look at. In essence a waste of film space. The idea is good, technically good, but bring in some more image to the scene.

A very nice image,no doubt about it.

Personally i wouldn't have it hanging on my wall though, because the converging lines are far too strong

While i didn't have time to read through others comments i did catch one that says it well - 'Is it an abstract or a landcape?'

Mixing the two so strongly doesn't work

Anders,

 

I appreciate your view and I know completely what you mean when referring to other images, but I'm really asking: does something HAVE to change in the viewer, from the viewing of an image for that image to be successful?

 

My questions still remain since nobody really offered a follow-up discussion: I'm wondering if emotions even need to be evoked? Because we are beings that feel and think, can this truly be achieved? Is aestehtic virtue overshadowed by our inherent complexity?

 

I don't know if my geological background has any impact on my perception, but the light is defintely coming from the slightly upper right. There is no question about it and I see absolutely NO evidences of a composite here. Please, leave that topic alone...

Pozdravlenija za snimka na sedmizata!Mislja,che njama nuzhda ot "zadulbocheni"analizi etc.Xubavoto si e xubavo...Pozdravi ot Brazilia!

Rumen

When I look at this

photo, or any photo, I certainly look at the elements of design and composition, but to me

aesthetic is emotion. The definition of aesthetic is "giving or designed to give pleasure

through

beauty". But I do think that when look at an image such as this, there are many levels to

appreciate it. The composition is fine to me, I don't see any overt problems here. It is an

interesting presentation just because it is a different view from what we "normally" see of

this subject. But once I come to terms with these things, I just don't find any other

aesthetic value for me. I am left a bit indifferent or without any strong emotion one way or

the other. So I think, as I have said here before, we have more of a graphic image and less

of an aesthetic piece for me--others may have a totally different sense of the aesthetics of

the image, that is a very subjective thing. And, of course, a graphic image can be

aesthetically pleasing and evoke strong emotional response.

Anders,

 

I also have a geology background, but I am not sure how much of a role that plays in my reading of this image. I think if you try mentally inverting the direction of the ripples in the background dunes (i.e., take what you see as the crest of each ripple and make it the trough) you will see how different people could read the light as coming from different directions. I still see the light as more likely coming from the upper right rather than the lower left, but I can see how the other interpretation is possible.

 

That said, even if the light is coming from the upper right that does not make for conclusive proof that this is not a composite image. I leave that debate to others.

Ooops. My last post should have been addressed to Mathieu. Sorry.