Untitled

genial'no

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum. We have this forum because future visitors might be interested in learning more about the pictures. They browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved?

So, when contributing to this thread, please keep the above in mind. Address the strengths, the shortcomings of the image. It's not good enough to like it, you should spend some time trying to put into words why that is the case. Equally so if you don't like it, or if you can't quite make up your mind.

Let's make sure this forum is a wonderful learning resource for future photographers!

Thank you and enjoy!

I don't know what she's waiting for, but it doesn't look like it will be along any time soon...

impressionistic/expressionistic. this has an eerie mood and tone for me. the long exposure(45 seconds) and PS work are unique in a way i'm not used to seeing. The circle-ing footsteps in both of the series are a focal point and add to the sense of mystery; the motion blur in of the dress does the same. I think, this works very well and keeps the viewers eye's circle'ing; In this way, I am forced to to return to different elements of the photo without leaving. I'll preface my next comment by saying it is coming from a reletive newcomer standpoint: i wonder about the placement of the horizon line.

Somewhat Nerd Oddball-esque (hope you get that...). I absolutely love almost all of your work. Thanks very much for the incredible inspiration!

 

The chiaroscuro is the work of a master, and the lines are from someone who has spent a long time...looking.

 

Shawn

Pretty, and the composition is elegant, but I see the special effects, not a coherent whole... a few years ago I'd be very impressed, but these days I just feel it's an oft-executed idea, pretty well done, though maybe a little too texture-heavy. I believe that photography nowadays has to embrace digital manipulation...but the digital manipulation has to be fresh and innovative - or almost invisible - to make me go "Ooh!" This seems to be trying a little too hard to look 'classic'...like a mock-Tudor extension to a house, if you get what I mean. But don't get me wrong, this is still a pic to be proud of. I'm just expressing my gut feeling. Best wishes.

I think that any picture that conveys an emotion is a worthy one regardless of the purity of the image, and if digital manipulation helps to convey the message, then so be it. The circling footsteps, the bleekness of the image, the girl looking out to the void of the sea and sky. She is very anxious about something. How many photographers out there can say that they have managed to convey this much in a single photo. Well done to Lars.

Very interested in the picture which posed for this work - as always in these cases.

I concur with Tim Lindop 100% -- conveying emotion is the key.

like Vin said, thanks Tim: for articulating what i was thinking.

On the issue of whether the texture adds to the photo or just makes it look photoshopped, I think here it works really well, and makes me imagine that the photo has been printed on canvas.

 

This photograph has many levels of interest. I think of the footsteps as generically representing all the people with whom the woman has been in contact through her life, coming and going, briefly passing through, as she ponders her past and seeks companionship or support for the journey ahead.

One of the most beautiful photos that Lars has shared with us. There is a strong Nordic mood of angst and timelessness. Kirkegaard and the sagas are passing by ! He is a great photographer and among the best on PN.

 

One of the initial questions you received on this specific photo was: What is your workflow ? You now have the opportunity to answer before the question is repeated too many times in this treath. Many of your photos have the same spell to them strong helped by your fantastic mastery of Photoshop. Congratulations !

Painting can be strictly representational, through to purely abstract, and may be created through many techniques and tools. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of photography.

 

If 100 years ago someone wanted to add particular chemistry to their process in the development of a negative or a print, or indeed used anything but the crudest of methods in the creation of the images (to the point of 'altering reality' by furthering the photograph articifially with a brush, or some other tool)...people would NOT in general demean the value of the work, as is so often happening these days when people do so with digital. So what is the difference with digital? It is not, I am sure, the change in media, but rather a complete lack of understanding by 'the critics', and a breathtaking stupidity to even think such a distinction has any value to anyone but the least refined. There are certainly many, many Photoshop Hacks...but there have also been paint-by-numbers 'painters' for decades. There is a world of distinction between the hacks and the serious artists, as always. But many of the posters on this site do not recognize that.

 

This work here IS 'serious' art...whether it is a photograph or a painting or a bunch of pixels that exist in some netherworld between.

 

Those amongst you who must incessantly floccinaucinihilipilificate the legitimate digital 'works' on this site should start concentrating on your own capabilities (read: expand your mind) rather than needlessly harping on what is essentially an uneducated point of view. But what else is new - the 'average' photographer is no more an artist than is the 'average' house painter.

 

This image above is a perfect example of what a lot of the images of pdn could be, if some of you started taking pictures and stopped talking so much...

 

I am not saying this about anyone in this post in particular, though obviously it fits some of the posts.

 

And maybe I should stop looking up big words in the dictionary...ya think?

 

Shawn

First, Lars

 

I look forward to every new PoW, but have never commented on any of them. I have to say this is the "best" PoW I have seen thus far. I say "best" because it suits my tastes as a photographer. Someone earlier mentioned that it looked like a painting.. impressionist/expressionist. The first thing that came to mind for me as far as art-hist is concerned is the pictorialism movement of the late 1800s/early 1900s. I think this photo would have fit in well at Stieglitz' 293 gallery in NY. To me it is deeply emotional, impressionistic(not in art terms, but mentally/emo) and there is a quality to it that I can't quite articulate. That to me is Art. Good Job!

 

Second,

 

Someone earlier asked the question: could this be reproduced in the darkroom?

 

Reproduced is a tough one, as anyone who prints knows no single [optical] print is exactly the same as another, but yes I think so. The vingetting[sp?] is easy burning... the tone.. well there are a vast array of toners available plus whatever home-brew one might produce.. and as far as the texture there are many ways to produce such.. I think working with acetate under your neg or some other masking substance could produce such a texture.

 

I suggest anyone who questions whether or not this is photography study the pictorialism movement in photography. f64 overshadows these pioneers in art-photography historically, but their contribution to photography and art in general cannot be overlooked. They were the first to see photography as more than just science and accurate reproduction, but a form of artistic expression.. they used heavy darkroom manipulations in order to produce these fine works.. and I ramble on.

 

Good Job Lars!

I think the footprints are a total distraction to the picture. Evidentally, I am in the minority at this point--but then I always seem to be anyway. I, posing as Willie the Cropper, tried to mentally improve the presentation by cropping them out, but that throws the horizon right in the center of the image.

 

In some ways, I like the texture effect achieved in photoshop, but it is overdone for my taste. Some of your other work use similar texture, but not quite as severely. I like them better, I think. The background looks more like a painted canvas against which the girl is standing. I know that that is not what truly is pictured here, but I still see it that way.

 

As far as the discussion goes on "photographs" vs. "Photoshoped depictions," I'm with the photoshop people. The future is here, Long Live Photoshop!

This is realy amazing and good art work.

I agree that this is a photo-shop work and usaually I don�t like this kind of work. But I love this image. It has something very special

Are we really going to go through yet another week where the pro-PS folks misrepresent the concerns some of us have about heavily manipulated images? Some of you are really tired of hearing me say this, but it has become clear to me that the value of bringing home what you saw in the camera's viewfinder continues to diminish as more and more viewers need to see something outside the realm of the real world before it will draw their interest. It's as though you've seen it all thousands of times everyday and want to see something different. Have you really become so desensitized to the subtleties of the world around you? Do you really need a posed model, a black sky, and impossible light to get your attention?

Carl,

 

Do you hold the same standard for painters? If so, we should have ended the evolution of art with the dutch masters. They were as accurate as one could get in that medium. Or should we throw all of Van Goghs work in the trash? He painted not what was there, but what he SAW. And thats the point. Im not against straight photography, but why hold every photographer to that standard? It's not what I see in the viewfinder, but in my mind that I wish to express.

Rightly or wrongly, I view this as digital painting... it's own valid art form, but somewhat more removed from photography than I care for. The tones and mood is interesting, albeit static.

I'm not holding anybody to a standard - viewer or photographer. I'm regretting the gradual loss of the ability to read and appreciate a found scene and capture it with a camera.

 

I've been taken to task for posting too frequently on POW discussions, so I'll back off for a while, but I wish my rather simple observation didn't need so much clarification.

Reviewing Steiglitz' work, you can find his thinking about melding photography with painting. I think that about covers the issue.

 

An artist's vision is one of the most unique and precious things we experience - art history demonstrates this. Unique and precious in encountering it, and unique and precious when it's presented by someone with skill. This is worth remembering and being reminded on a regular basis, since it is not often valued very highly, nurtured or encouraged.

 

Choosing this work was surprising to me because many in the phototgraphic world find it inappropriate to make 'photos into art.' I've had those in the fine art world express the same disdain from their perspective - how can you make a 'painting from a snapshot.'

 

But choosing it offers the opportunity for some to understand the abstract experience of encountering an image on its own merits first; appreciate the image content and the artist's vision. Offering it for discussion is an opportunity for some to step out of the cul de sac of photography's mechanical techniques and technical processes - which is the artsy worlds' complaint; the old right/left brain yin/yang.

 

So, I like the image, I like the choice and encourage Lars to continue this kind of excellent work. Further, I hope this POW will be followed by others challenging the status quo and broadening the members' understanding.

 

Bravo.

I like the colors and tones of this image, but the crisp lines and detail in the foreground footprints don't seem to fit and distract my eye from the figure

Well, I have to disagree with Carl. While I am not a big fan of heavy PS alterations - it is the final effect that counts. I like the image, and I do not really care that it has been PhotoShopped. Everyone sees the world differently, only the degree of difference varies.

Excellent image and well conceived. I just can't respond to it as a photograph. But having said that, what I really love about your image is absence of depth where one whould expect vastness of depth. The head looks like it is tacked to the horizon. It has a forced, nearly manic assertiveness to it, which is quite amazing considering the colors, tones and soft edges whould make it seem otherwise. There is an acute observation or conclusion about life in this.

 

Looking at a photograph is not the same as looking at a painting, or listening to a symphony. They communicate on different channels. By degrees we have gone from photography to "imaging", so seamlessly that they struggle to occupy a single category. They shouldn't.

And as a group we never seem to accept or get past this point.

 

Here's one way of looking at the difference: Mixed media ADDS TO what can be seen to communicate an idea or ideal. Photography TAKES AWAY FROM what we see all the time by selective framing to communicate a new way of looking at something. Both have their own styles and degrees of manipulation.

 

For sure this is not a definitive distinction and there is a LOT of bleed over.