Untitled

When I first saw this back in April, I was taken by its power. Over time, sometimes we lose

that initial hit, but I must say that I still find this an incredibly powerful image. We have

been given a contemplative image and we must decide what to do with it.

 

The texture of this image is not unlike one of the old gum processes or a carbon or carbro

print that has been hand tinted. The textures harkin to these primitive "wet" processes

and handmade papers and so I really do see this as an interpretation of what was there,

not a photoshop trick. There is a line out there, but I don't think this has gone over it.

 

For me, I love naturally beautiful, straight photos, but I also love uses of the medium that

allow us to go further in our expression of our concerns and aesthetics. Even if this was a

backdrop, it would not matter to me, the effect is complete (see the work of Loretta Lux

for beautiful backdrop landscape/portrait work). I don't see decorator edges or an

attempt to make a photo something else, just the application of techniques to enhance the

intended mood.

 

The footprints might be the biggest area of contention for me, I like them on many levels,

and I do think that Julie put the words to what these represent and, let's face it, they are

pretty real!

I wonder how many staunch supporters of traditional darkroom methods who are visitors to this forum have actually been inside a darkroom? People have been manipulating photographs as long as photographs have existed. Photography is a lie (rinse and repeat) photography is a lie.

 

As frequently as manipulated photographs are chosen (knowingly or unwittingly) for this forum, some people may be forced to change their thinking about what kind of site this is.

I'm among those intrigued by the encroachment of digital photography into the realm of painting. A 2 x 2 meter print of this could easily hang in many an art museum. It is bound to cause a more profound evaluation of both mediums!

First of all, thanks for the wonderful critiques & comments. I am happy my photo was found worthy of discussion. Unbelievably, this is the second time it happens for me. The first time, I was intimidated by the spotlight and the amount of negative feedback, but I've grown a few chesthairs since then, and I think I'll be so outrageous as to defend my use of photoshop and imageenhancing software.

 

A couple of days ago I saw an interesting program on Elliott Erwitt (a Magnum photographer). He made a harsh statement along the lines of calling photomanipulation "aesthetic masturbation". From a 'magnum point of view' I completely agree with him. But I'm not documenting reality, I'm not trying to fake reality either, or alter situations as seen by the public eye. I honestly dont think I'm raping photography as a truthful media. My stories are personal stories, subjective stories which can be told in any way I, the storyteller, see fit. The situations are staged; Truth or lies, whats the difference?

Adding textures to photographs to make it look aged or in this case to make the endless horizon seem like an illusion, is more than aesthetic masturbation, I think. The effect carries sentimentality, melancholy or mystery. Those are elements in my stories. I also find it interesting how textures sometimes completely flattens a photograph, emphasizing the 2D nature of photography.

 

I'm disgusted by photoshopped journalistic photography, in that case I share Elliots contempt for the aesthetic masturbators. I'm also worried about the growing desire to make everything look good (even the 9/11 attacks were abused in that context: what is sunrays beautifully filtering through the dustfilled air above the ruins of the WTC towers, other than aesthetic masturbation?) I want journalism as close to the truth and as free of subjective opinion as possible, including the photography.

 

I'm getting off track here I guess. What I was trying to point out was just I hope there is a big gap between journalistic photography and art photography. My works are all based on photographic materials; merging surfacetextures with landscapes or portraits might add a digital dimension.. I consider it photography, but digital art might be a better label, if you are so inclined.

 

Attached is the untextured image as it looks after .NEF conversion.

Thanks again for all the inputs!

Thanks for posting the untextured version Lars. Since the image is square some of us will also be interested in seeing the uncropped version if it is not too impolite to ask. I assume the vignette was added after the crop since it appears more or less circular.

 

I really like the use of color and the way if affects the mood or perception of the image.

Emotional impact: WOW, this is so much more than a photograph. This is a snippet of time out of some alternative (creepy?) place. And the footprints seem to say the inhabitants come out here every day in hopes that this is the day. Wow.

 

Technique: Great technique. Appears to be a photo from some alternative time. Very static balanced timeless composition. Perfectly square, sharp footprints, snap sharp horizontal horizon. Windblown clothes and sea. I suspect the horizon line was drawn in to sharpen it and divide it from the sky. Excellent post processing work. I personally don�t care for the tint, maybe a colder blue/black/other might work for me.

 

In any case Mr. Raun gets a 10 for artistic merit and a 10 for technique. And a 9plus for creepyness. I would NOT consider hanging this in my house, as it would give me bad dreams.

Dennis, the vignette (though enhanced in the final version) was not added. Its a result of the combined ND and pol filter (and perhaps poor construction of the 12-24mm, though theres no vignetting when I shoot without the filters). Attaching the uncropped version to show the extreme periferal vignetting caused by these filters.

 

Thanks JP& AP! Its creepy? That worries me abit!

 

Thanks Welthorpe. I'm sure Erwitt would disagree. I'm a pathetic 'wanker' in his eyes :-)

Cool, I was imagining this as horizontal for some reason. I should have known from the straight as an arrow horizon that it began as a vertical shot.

I find the original (as you cropped it) more compelling and direct, and more believably odd and fascinating. Is it because of the lesser degree of photoshopping?

 

Perhaps. The flatness of the colors, especially the grey sky, makes a very elegant statement to me.

Any one of these versions would work for me. The differences are subtle. I would have a hard time deciding which version I liked the best.

A haunting image. I've looked at it all day and am still enjoying it. The model's pose, the seascape, and the footprints all fit together extremely well. One quick comment to point out the obvious: Lars's PS treatment of this was simply to add texture, something often done in traditional wet-darkroom work. So this is not really an example of extreme digital manipulation after all, and indeed the textured version isn't that much different from the original.

To E Welthorpe:

"There is no difference between 'taking away' from reality and 'adding to' it".

 

Picture this: a black and white street photograph of say, an old man studying a chessboard play. He's lit by the filtered light of a pub window. Wrinkled eyes, cigarette hanging from his mouth, helix of smoke wafting up, totally absorbed. You see it and part of you understands that you've seen this, but passed by unrecognizingly. Now you admire the photographer for extracting this single frame from the constant cinema of life. Then you see the larger sense. An old man reviewing his life, the choices he's made, moving forward with what he knows.

 

Take the same image and add color, blur, hard light, contrast and unsharp mask. You might still come up with a similar communication, but you might not have engaged the viewer's sense of the world in quite the same way. And so you have a different effect.

 

Not better.

Not worse.

Different.

 

Lars image is almost an interface between the two worlds. The footprints and the person are certainly real. But the world she/he faces is an abstraction.

First off I just wanted to say that this is certainly a very cool image, worthy of its reward, regardless of how it was created, but I wanted to add my two cents....

 

As a film only photographer at this point, I wonder when/if we will lose what I will call "pure photography" at some point, (some may argue we have already) through the use of advanced technology outside of the camera. PS is apparently a great tool, which I have never used due to my film only background, but when does it remove our necessity to snap a great photo as opposed to invent one on high end software? I can only imagine that one day the software will become so advanced and sophisticated that any plain image could be reworked into a masterpiece.

 

Does one need to be a great photographer to create these images or rather more in the line of a graphic designer or a computer wiz? Ansel Adams genious lay in his ability not only to snap a great photo, by waiting on the optimal light conditions et al, but doing the best development work with negs and prints. Still his darkroom magic didn't have anywhere near the range of PS or future programs. I just think we may be losing the art of pure photography due to the ability to extremely enhance images with technology. As I said earlier, what happens when the software becomes so good that we barely need the camera? This is a day that will certainly come. Is it still photography?

 

A few of the earlier responses have strongly defend PS and have even gone on to heavily knock critics of it. This is more of a philosophical discussion on technology and whether the artists who create enhanced digital images are pure photographers or something new like "digitalographers". If the 'heavy lifting' in creating an image is done by software and not the camera is this still the same art form. I'm not knocking anyone here. This is very good art for sure and can render great results, as above, but I'm not sure if its the same medium as traditional photography.

I for one was surprised at how much of the effort that went into this image was accomplished in the camera.

 

I think some people are confused about how photographs are made. Nothing happens without the photographer. Cameras, enlargers and software do not create photographs. Don't be fooled into thinking that software alone can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

For those befuddled individuals who are standing in the cloud of dust created by the stampede towards digital photography, the fact is that the future has already come and rolled right past while you were standing there whining about it.

Dynamic photography. My eyes can not rest. Because of central position I start to look at the object, than her blurred bottom of the coat disturb me. After that I am attracted by the shadow, than my eyes jumps to the sky, that is not so interesting as I thought, when I was looking at the shadow. So I jump to the light floor, where I can see the footprints. Follows the question, what happened, who left these? We are at the start again, with the girl, staring at the horizon and her white hat, coat�Nice. Square format complement this circle.

The main �problem� for me is, that I am asking my self, is this real? Second version, without �painting filter� looks more real, but perhaps is not so strong. Here we are coming to the point about photography vs. painting. We know, that the painting is manipulated through the artist, but inside ourselves we still believe, that photography is not telling lies, that is exact (more or less) replica of something, that actually happened, even that is represented through the eyes of photographer. All this questions are because of the similarity with painting.

Very good choice of POW.

Regards.

I also actually find the original to be more emotional, more aesthetic than the selected Photograph of the Week. The mood and the atmosphere, so resplendently uncomplicated and chilling. Now it's just black stains obscuring truth.

I prefer by far the original un-Photoshopped version. While I still find the theme a little cliche, it is far more elegant and artistic in my view. The textures added clutter that wasn't needed. I think it underlines the point I was making earlier about digital manipulation needing to be fresh and forward looking to be worthwhile. The manipulation effects most often try to make a picture look antique...because everyone thinks old means classic...so we get Mock-Victoriana, which is never as good as true Victoriana, or certainly not as good as true Modern. I'd like to see images of poignancy and solitude made today that LOOK like they were made today... I know I'm biased because that's what I try to do...but though I think this is a good photo (especially without the PS) I'd like to see more MODERN works as POW... (particularly with regard to digital alteration) cutting edge avant-gard stuff, even if not aesthetically as good as this...so we can learn from it and take things forward. Seeing the world afresh, which I do not here. Just personal opinion. Best wishes.

I have to agree with Dennis on this. The in camera work is wonderful. The cropped version without PS editing alone is very good. I particularly like the footprints which both add extra impact and lead the eye right up to the lone figure. Beautifully done Lars

I much prefer the unedited version. The PS manipulations make it look like what it is: a manipulated photo. The original is outstanding enough that I think it doesn't benefit from the PS changes.

 

In my opinion, manipulated photographic images are a legitimate art form, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "photography". Depending on the degree of manipulation, there may be elements of photography that are used in making the image, but that still doesn't always make it photography. I also don't think that to be categorized as photography, images cannot be manipulated at all. It's just a matter of the degree of manipulation and the type of manipulation.

 

Maybe there should be a distinction between photoillustration and photography. Where to draw the line is quite subjective, however.

Good creation....i'm not so sure this is a good photograph however.

Lars, congratulations for the worthy POW. As a big fan of your work, I am happy to see attention brought to this image and, as a whole, to the body of your work.

 

I am also happy to see the discussions on digital vs analog, edited vs un-edited image-making. We are in the middle of a tremendous transition in image-making world. It is very exciting. As always has been, there is some inertia slowing the transition, but with time, all will be forgotten. Irrespective of the medium or scale of editing, hopefully, the creative,original and quality works will be remembered.

 

Cheers,

What a excellent pic!

Simply gorgeous! The tones, the texture, the composition and lighting. Beautiful! This is art, be proud Lars!

I really like the Square format for this subject. The attention is effectively focused on the girl by having her in the centre of the frame. That being so, I am drawn in her mind and that starts the wheels of my imagination. Although, I wish the crop would be adjusted so she is dead centre (there is more space on the right as it is).

 

The mutlitude of footsteps enhances the photograph by introducing questions and possible interpretations. The long exposure adds to the dreamy feeling that helps take the mind to a metaphysical level instead of letting it wander in visual inspection. I like the tones. I like the texturing but I find it is not one of Lars' best. I find it a bit harsh in certain areas and thus intrusive to my viewing pleasure.

 

My eyes keep stumbling on the shadow. I have tried to think why it should/should not be there. I think I'd rather see it edited away to bolden the dreamy feeling of personal reflection and introspection. On the other hand, it adds a quirky element.

 

Did she come many times to the beach? Is the shadow part of her conscience she is trying to wash away in this endless sea? I think the vignetting works well in this image.

 

Elton John's song (?) 'Candle in the Wind' popped into my head when I viewed this. I thought it was interesting an image should recall a musical reference.

Congratulations to Lars for an image loaded with interpretive potential. We are confronted

with a scene portraying a right of passage. The subject is at a threshold, the unknown

awaits. Perhaps she can not find the confidence in her own instincts to make the break

with the past, and move on. The footmarks in the sand can be read as indecision. It is all

in the mind of the viewer how this drama will unfold. This is what Art does. It makes us a

part of life in ways our limited realities can not provide. So far I havn't read many

interpretations of the image. There is much concern (as usual) about how the picture was

made. I have been wondering about this and believe the technological revolution in the

Arts in general is ( aside from the positive aspects) creating great insecurities. Is it

possible that we are losing the trust in our instincts at the moment of capture? Do we feel

that the actual moment is not as important as what will happen later on the computor? It

may be that for some photographers manipulation is as much a part of the process as

being sure your batteries are charged. It might even be that we don't feel confident in the

final product unless we have explored the manipulation process. It reminds me of the '70's

when if you were 20 and hadn't seen a therapist you felt you wern't facing your self. This I

am saying, because recently we are seeing on the POW Artists who perhaps manipulated

unnecessarily. They just had to do it, for some reason . In this case the end result is a

photograph, of course. Respect is another matter. Just as photo-realist painters tried so

hard to make a painting an imitation of a photo, so to we have photographers who imitate

paintings. In the end it can only be judged on its sucess as a visual window that attracts

us with its view. Lars projects his Nordic sensibilities on the scene. Many of the best

figurative painters are coming from Nordic countries, especially Norway. Nordic pathos

is ,in my opinion being best realised by Odd Nerdrum in Norway. Anyone interested in the

difference between a painting and a photo, should check him out. Hips