Untitled

Mathieu, Dont you feel the figure as a sun dial. That shadow for me says much about the

overall theme here, TIME.

It's a beautiful photo! I'd be interested in knowing how he accomplished the effects. It looks like he added effects to the sky & water, but left the sand & the shadow crisp... v. tricky...

A beautiful image. The effect and mood reminds me of the photographs of Robert and Sarah Parke-Harrison. They use paper negatives and hand re-touching to create dream-like images. Is their work any more valid because it is created by old techniques rather than through the use of photoshop? I don't think so. The method used to create an image is irrelevant if that image conveys what we want it to. You have created an image that a person can look at for hours. Great work.

CR Hips asked �Do we feel that the actual moment is not as important as what will happen later on the computor?�

 

Manipulation as a word has negative connotations, perhaps rightly so, if one considers photo journalism. (though it is admirable to strive for unadultrated truth, it is ultimately debatable if even purist documentary images come close to telling �the whole truth�.) In the context of photography as an art form, I would argue that so-called manipulations are nothing more that �customization� or �personalization� of images. It is really in eye of the beholder if you would like to see �what the camera captures� or �what the artist sees�.

 

IMHO, it really does not matter when the personalization of an image takes place, before, at, or after the image capture(s), as I am more interested to see what and how an artist dares to think.

I think it doesn't count (too much) how we do postprocessing on our images, provided there is a strong photographic thinking while preparing and shooting the image.

 

This image from Lars works greatly equally in the postprocessed and raw versions but i would like to draw your attention to fact the composition and the realization is the key moment to make images such this: you need a strong photographic mind! For example:

 

1) there are two lines (one flat one curved) near the horizontal thirds, these are isolating 3 distinguished elements (earth, water and air) and the human figure crosses through them! time (and future) is fuzzy, so it is intreresting noticing that the human figure lives in the present (earth) but is progressively projected into the future (water and air)

 

2) again on composition, lars went for a (not too much) dead center placing of the main subject... in fact it is the human figure that is projected to time... note that this create a strong forward perspective (without adding evident diagonal lines!!!! but they are there as perspective!!!!!)

 

3) long exposure - a great choice, becouse it blurs the image exactly where i might expect it... (the fuzziness of water and sky - the future)

 

4) finally postprocessing... it seems to help in giving the image a more abstract feeling - it is visible as should be but not too heavy.. . very good!

 

Provided the points above i wouldn't put too much attention in postprocessing, becouse it seems that the shooting itself made the picture, then a little of photoshop technique gave a little help (as artist's decision and preference - anyway!)

 

regards

Fantastic work as usual Lars. Congratulations.

Great image and I like it a lot. Congratulations.

 

It does however start to beg the question should there be two categories for POW: a) Photo, and b) 'Image' - where 'a' highlights the image as captured in the camera (digital or film) and 'b' showcases what can be done with a captured image with some advanced post processing.

I had a vision and ansel adams came to me and asked a question and he said: Was this image created by capturing light? because if it was, then ansel says why can't we accept that there is a photograph, and then there is a print, and the print of a photograph need not adhere to ancient definitions.

 

Please don't disagree with ansel adams or he will smite you.

Doug, it's good to have you back. These discussions desparately need some levity.

 

Back to the image, I confess I was surprised at how much of this was done in camera, which begs the question - are we interested in the extent of the manipulation, the methods used to obtain it, or neither? This photograph has a little bit of everything in it - set up, long exposure, filters, PS layers - something for everyone.

 

Of course I'm trying to visualize a similar image that would use none of the techniques listed above, for the sake of comparison, to see how much of the impact and associations are based on artistic effects used to remove the subject and environment from our own experience.

~ artistic effects used to remove the subject and environment from our own experience ~

 

Here's a different take on the function of the artistic effects: They remove or modify various details that identify this as a particular, concrete scene -- a particular woman standing on a particular beach on a particular day. By doing so, they render the image more abstract and universal. But in doing that, they actually bring it closer to our experience, by making it something we can identify with. Most of us have never been to the beach where this woman is standing. But we probably have, both literally and metaphorically, stood hunched over against the elements, a messy track of footprints behind us, facing off into the unknown vastness.

 

To my eye, this is an extremely fine image, and I'm pleased to have had the chance to savor it. I'm not sure to what extent I approve of the overlaid texture; I'd like to see a version halfway between the finished one and the original photo. This is not because I don't like the texture -- I do -- but because the original in-camera image is already so strong.

 

When I first saw this, I thought perhaps the footprints were too many, too messy. The more I look, though, the more I think they are just right. The woman's slightly hunched pose and the shadow, with the sundial effect Hips mentioned, are wonderful, as is the sheen of the damp sand on the beach. One non-obvious detail that I think contributes much is the thin line of surf hear the horizon at right. Block it out with your finger and see how much is lost. And it combines with the blurred surf below it to balance the cloud bank at left.

 

This image has staying power. That is one of the finest features a photograph can have and one of the most difficult to achieve.

I like the picture a lot, but the sky area is a bit heavy in texture, a bit rough, but then again you can always tweak it again to taste as the mood changes.

 

Many in here have commented that it is not photography because of the heavy photoshop artistic affects. The real problem is most people are not clear as to what is going on in the art and photo world. It is now very common for traditional painters to photograph the scene first and then paint it, something not existant in Rembrandts days. In particular now because of this benefit were now seeing detail paintings of animals never before possible. So I could argue isn't this a photo, rather then a painting in oil, after all the exposure came first and the rest is almost like xeroxing. Why is it okay for traditional artists to do as they please to obtain the image they desire, use mixed media, but it is not okay for the photographer. For the first time we have some control of our medium of photography, like painters have, and yet were afraid to use these advantages. Clearly the traditional painters have no hangups here and do whatever is necessary to make life easier. In fact many painters are now photographing, then doing a light digital print straight to canvas, then painting over top of it to get all the perspective and fine details just right (source: Flaar Reports). Artists are now using a Cruz flatbed scanner to copy 30x40" sizes in oil paintings, then making reprints by the hundreds, and all appearing like the original on canvas. Why can they embrace photo technology without any hangups, yet we are so stuborn to the old ways in photography. If you apply an artistic effect in Photoshop, that is "my choice" for expression, I am the artist, and I can do what I think looks best. As the traditional oil painter moves closer to being a photo in appearance (often very hard to tell from a photo),then I have as much right to move from too much sharpness and somewhere toward the middle ground. I find sometimes there is too much detail, it is too sharp, or too busy, and a bit of artistic expression in photoshop makes it far better. We are all embracing technology, there are no rules. I can at least say my image started with a camera and ends there, a fine art painter cannot do the same, and he is guilty of mixed use of medias and no longer pure to his artform (he is really a photographer first, a painter second). Check out www.speraart.ca. As far as I am concerned without the camera he would not have obtained such detail in his paintings, which by the way are incredible.

This is beautiful work. The tones are astonishing, both in the original and in the shopped version. Congratulations, Lars.

 

--Lannie

It is now very common for traditional painters to photograph the scene first and then paint it, something not existant in Rembrandts days. In particular now because of this benefit were now seeing detail paintings of animals never before possible

Your may want to check Edgar Degas. And his horses. Old french guy, impressionist, XIX century.

I see a lot of hip/avant-garde artsy talk about manipulation, scanners, and integration of painting and photography. I see people extolling the virtues of photoshop, like nothing of the sort has been done before, new horizons, and the armies of strawmen that accompany this debate crawl restive behind the messages.

Idealism versus Realism. That's the name of the game. The tools are diverse as the epochs. In the XIX century there were elaborate backdrops and disguises, with fake roman columns on carpet. In the 20's graphite and drawing on the negative ruled supreme. Now photoshop is the tool of choice of the idealists.

For the realists, the tool has been very simple, and invariable: their eye.

Battles have been fought, battles are being fought, and battles will be fought, as those two soul states are irreconciliable.

But it's the same old debate since the beginning of photography. The tides can recede, but always come back.

Well, I'm just jealous. Jealous of the image, of the vision, of the result, of the attention, and other, more vague issues. Quite a buzz for a monochrome image, eh? I was going to say something small like, "the shadow looks faked, too hard of an edge" but there it is in the original, hard as steel, so I guess I'm wrong there. Anyway, I have to admit that I just stared at this image for a long time thinking "if I could make images like that I could make a living doing them".

I hope you do, or at least I hope you keep making them, because the world needs to see them, dam your hide! :)

Wonder view as an old master pinter !!!

Great effect, angle selected, very soft lighting colours.

Nice treatment at the moment to combinated those beautiful tones.

I feel into a story were some one could find as we wish ...

Congratulations Lars Raun 7/7

"For the first time we have some control of our medium of photography, like painters have..."

 

I'm not sure that anything was done to this pic that has not been available to any photographer for more than 100 years for what it's worth.

Fascinating photograph. Who cares if there was some manipulation!

I do the promytius syl's words mine. If only I could create something that beautiful!

I find the footprints a distraction. If they clearly related to the figure, perhaps they'd add to the story, but I don't think they're from her shoes and pacing around.

 

I like a lot of what's going on with this image, but I think the spare footprints on Lars' other version of this image would work much better.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4318249

I don't think that Digital Art is any less worthwhile then photography, but I think people do

need to recognize there is a difference. Once you start heavily manipulating an image in a

way that you couldn't manipulate the image at the time of capture, it's now digital art.

Again not of any less value then a photograph, just different.

 

But this is not something new. Darkroom art has existed for almost as long as

photography. A 3 neg. sandwich with textured acetates etc. is no more a photograph then

digital art is.

 

Paintings have been based off what a camera sees since long before film existed (camera

obscura anyone?). Are they photographs? Neither is a "digital painting" made from a

photograph.

 

But beyond all this, a nice photograph in the original and a nice piece of digital art in your

PoW. Nice work.

It is very pleasing to my eye with old classic feel. I think it is well done...Bravo!

The footsteps show that the woman has tried different ways in life and now she is thinking about the last choice .....

 

I very much appreciate the work Lars has done, welldone. Yet it can't be categorized as photography. I call it Photoshopography.

 

Thanks Lars

When your universe collapses around you, and you find yourself wondering where your next pay cheque big enough to pay the bills is going to come from, you start to look out at the world with tunnel vision. All the opportunities seem to disappear into a black fade; they fall just beyond your peripheral vision and become intangibles of no magnitude compared to the depth of your strife.

 

To counter this effect, we like to take ourselves somewhere where there is a big horizon, where we can take a breath of air and feel it enter and cleanse our body, instead of the air we breathe without noticing. It reminds us that we are breathing - that we were breathing before we came here, that we are breathing now, and that we will continue to go on breathing. We hold a breath, thinking that having the clean air inside of us can only be a good thing, and then decide that we want the moment to linger. For a short while, time dilates and we are able to imagine that nothing else matters. Only the emptiness in front of our eyes is important, and that is there only to be enjoyed. The moment quickly passes, and we are again cognisant of our true situation.

 

But then we try to look hard to see how far the metaphorical horizon goes, how far away it is, and to see if there is anything either on or even beyond it. But the act of trying only seems to draw down the depth of our vision, pulling the horizon right in front of our eyes. While the world becomes a fuzz we see a definite line we can associate with, and then we realize that no matter how far towards it we either walk or swim or fly, it will still be the same immeasurable distance away. We ultimately feel disappointed when we walk away from such scenery that no inspiration has come. It makes us feel more disconsolate to be told that the future lies back in the depths of the towns and cities, in the rat race and the foraging through the frenzied media to which we must return for sought opportunity.

 

But then when we turn away and start to retreat, we realize that many, many people have been in exactly the same situation, and they have turned away from an empty inspiration and - life goes on. We imagine the ghosts of those people, now sat behind office desks, working to pay the mortgage. This immediately imbues us with the superior feeling that, at least in these few moments, we are above the squalor of our civilization and are uniquely able to appreciate the world for what it really is.

 

In the real world, this procession of emotions runs through us chaotically but sequentially; in his image Lars has caught the whole gamut in an instant, simultaneously capturing grand and diminished horizons, wonderful vistas and forlorn outlooks, hope, despair and optimism. Such can only be obtained by taking a very good photograph and then applying a deep, dark varnish of personal insight.

Great work, I love it. Im sorry for not having anything 'wise' or improving to say. I love how in the image I get a nice feeling, it reminds me of summer and a lonely feeling.

Although this is beautifully executed, I find it to be more a lesson in photoshop than photography.

I wonder if the people still complaining about photoshop, actually bothered to look at the original photo I supplied, or if they just moan about photoshop out of habit. Its getting really old!

 

Thanks to Dale Mellor et al who had the courage of reading into the image, instead of just staying on the strictly technological and sterile chatter..