Wind Draperies

I like the photograph, it is very dramatic. I like finding out how it was done even more. I never thought about compressing a photo to give it a more dramatic look. Would it of been better to know how it was done at the same time as seeing it? Maybe, but I say "enjoy the moment"

If we use a fisheye lense is the manipulation more valid ? Or a telephoto or wide angle or a filter.

 

Personally all that matters to me is aesthetics. I like soft dunes.

1. An interesting aspect is that the sense of scale in this shot is somewhat ambiguous: are the green shapes on the lower left corner trees, small plants or even patches of forrest? Since my eye hasn't got something to compare and establish actual dimensions, it's left to the brain to do the guess work.

2. I, too, would prefer the original, probably non-elongated shot (even as pow).

Unlike many on Photo.net, this item doesn't hold my interest long-term. It's the antithesis of work that initially appears unexceptional, but which gradually reveals its secrets. Perhaps only academic, I think scenes such as this are mostly useful as tools to demonstrate the difference between an image and a photograph.

We see a lot of animated reality in, for example, Pixar movies. You marvel at how good it is done, but never mistake it for your own universe. This picture is like that. It looks like a cell from an animated movie about the desert. Artistically, it is your vision and your amplification of rhythms and contours you saw in this desert. There is nothing invalid here.

 

For me it is some other genre than a photograph. In that, I side with Kent ^.

This is hilarious!!

 

Glad you had fun doctoring it up, it shows.

I think the real image would be great in deeper light. I could just imagine taking a flight with

my XPan loaded with Kodachrome and mounting it on a gyro.

This weeks image is an attention grabber for sure. I wouldn't mind showing this picture on my wall, which is one of the measurements I make when evaluating a picture. In fact, I would very much like looking at it often and for long periods.

 

When realization of how it was done, and knowing in my heart that it was not real, I felt a bit better about my geology knowledge. What artist wouldn't like to have something like this to attract his viewers. I cannot wait to try this effect on something of mine.

 

I can understand the feeling some have of being duped by the non-reality of this picture, but not to the extent of disapproving of the technique. I like it a lot, and I like the more natural view someone added later equally well.

 

I agree strongly with Anders Hirgel comments. I can see no way of cropping which would improve it, so I'm happy. My best to Paul for showing me a new way to see.

 

Willie the Cropper

When I first looked at this I thought it was a cleverly done montage of different

mathematical

curves from a graphing calculator. It looked very plastic(as in unreal) and reminded me of

the landscapes manufactured by a photographer in the LA area back in the early 80's--he

used paper and the results were actually a bit more believable.

 

The discussion regarding being duped or whatever is not an issue for me regarding the

visual here, except I think Paul made it one by his title. The title implies that this is a real

place, IMO, and that is the only thing that bothers me on an artistic or ethical level. If we

are going to call something by its name(Namibia Desert along with Wind Cathedral), then it

should be what we are calling it or include some word that gives a hint that it is an

interpretation. Alternatively, just give it some non-specific title-like "Wind Cathedral" with

no attribution to the Namibia Desert.

 

As to the image, I wish as much work went into making this a richer image as went into

altering it's physical characteristics.

photoshop is real.. I think that it is a very pleasant photo, i like it! If you use photoshop to distort the reality, you do it very well.

I find this image neither interesting nor honest. There are too many that accept something like this at face value while the submitting party chuckles because viewers can't guess the answer. This is a photography forum and submittals that use manipulation should specifically be noted.

There is nothing wrong with manipulation if it is done tastefully. This photograph is a great example of good use of manipulation. It's very appealing to the eye and probably expresses the way the photographer saw it in his mind, which is one of the key points in artistic photography.

Google search gave www.camk.edu.pl/~akr/travels.html and then click on the desert picture to get www.camk.edu.pl/~akr/WidokzDune45.jpg and can see some similarities

It is of no concern to me if this image is real , manipulated, distorted or deep fried, all that

really matters is whether it is an interesting image that has some purpose behind it. Who the

=== cares what the title is, it's just Paul's personal reference which only has meaning to

him. Does the picture work on levels that improve us for the experience of viewing it? I

say ,maybe. Does it make us more aware of the infinite possibilities?, Why not? How about ,

does it make us think? Be curious? Ok, but to be honest , who cares. The presentation is

bland and the effect unrelatable. Having said that, it has some sort of appeal that probably

taps into our desire to discover a new environment in our overly understood natural world. I

like it for its unattainable qualities. It is of the imagination, I think.

Nice work Paul, you have managed to get people talking about something we are all passionate about. The image/photo looks great and thats all you were tying to do, to those who wish too take this and themselves too seriously, I say "Pump up princess".

Yep, I must agree with Mona - you cheated us by giving it the full name. "Wind Cathedral" would have been sufficient. None of this Nambia business, date, etc. I still like the picture very much, but implying that it represents the Nambian desert dune field goes against my grain. Sorry Paul.

Having said that, it has some sort of appeal that probably taps into our desire to discover a new environment in our overly understood natural world.

And if we don't like that natural world, we sit back in our couch eating fast food and distort the image to one we find more appealing, right?

I have no idea if the image in question here was manipulated or not, but if it was, it qualifies as 'fast food adjusted for a Western audience' and not anything if was trying to pretend to be.

I like the photo has is, but I feal the sky a litle washed.

Manipulated or not manipulated? Who cares? The unmanipulated checkbox

is not checked. It is simply a photo/image taken in unattractive light. Cheers!

This duscussion is quite humorous.

 

Is any different to "manipulate" a photograph by dodging and burning in a darkroom? Or by shifting or tilting a lens on a view camera? What about using filters? Or any of the other time-honored tricks photographers (including all of the greats) have used in producing a photograph.

 

I am assuming that all of the "purists" throwing stones at Paul don't do any of the above.

 

I would like to see what Ansel Adams would do with Photoshop. After reading how he printed photographs using wet chemistry, I have no doubt that he would be using the latest version of Photoshop instead. And no, this is NOT an Ansel Adams type of photograph. It is a photographer making an artistic statement using photography and technology.

I was deceived also. My first reaction was annoyance, but this has been more than offset by the entertaining spat Paul's deception has triggered. If his deception was as deliberate as it appears, then yes, that was a little naughty. But we should be big boys about it and appreciate his devious little trick on us. Well done.

To me , wind cathedral is a good record shot of a very unusual geographic feature. Its well exposed, technically OK but there is no real art in it.

Independent if the sand defies the laws of Gravity I liked the composition and the final outcome. I think in today's photography gone are the days when one does not use manuipalation .I find nothing wrong that a photogeapher uses photoshop to create a surreal image ...in sort of Miro trend....some people may like it and others not..but this is life :)))..I think one should however state the this is a manuipulated image taken from an original landscape of the place so that nobody feels decieved.Many would be shocked going to Namibia and finding a diverse landscape :)))

I would agree with several of you, that Paul could have prevented putting the small word "Namibia" in the title. No reason to provoke the comments we have seen above: Boooooo, . you cheated us, tricked, duped etc. Could we not agree on one thing: We are here with different views on what photography is all about. In fact, in my view we are not discussing photography at all but we are all talking about ourselves and how we use photos and cameras to make a living and/or express ourselves.

 

Nobody has ever dared accusing Monet, Picasso or Cezanne of manipulating paintings of south of France because they didn�t reproduce reality, but the way the artist saw it. Photography will only be accepted as an art if at least we the photographers accept between ourselves that the photo is the end result that never should be judged as to what degree it reproduces reality.

 

This being said, Paul photo is probably not anywhere near a peace of art, but it is a very aesthetic and original photo with an uncomplicated composition and pleasant colour tones that is a good candidate for being on the wall of Doug.

reading the thread, and how it is developing on the "photoshop=trick" axis, i wanted to thrown out a couple of stones too....

 

the amazing thing in all this is how a *really simple manipulation* helped a nice (but still average) shot to become pow.

 

It happens daily in this forum that photography purists express all their bad feelings any time a manipulated image shows up into the pow thread, i understand their statements, if photography were a fish this image wouldnt qualify as fresh fish for sure...

 

On the other side is strange (or unclear) wether all the people that post extremely well realized manipulations (people that dodge, burn, do layer masks, adjust levels, handpaint in ps and similia, and that work weeks to make just one piece) dont feel themselves tricked too by the image... after all if digital alteration were a bread, this image wouldn't qualify as fresh bread either! what is worse is that the simple trick has also been a most effective one! we can detract from this image how much we want, but this remain still a pow and we cannot do a thing abt it!

 

we have got here is an example of how a little of imagination, and a wicky deceptive instinct, can make up something that is not pure photography nor pure digital alt but still works into getting attention...

 

isnt it a sign of the times? whoever actually is doing digital photography is *forced* more or less to apply some degree of trasformation to the image, take as example the color -> b/w conversion: people who goes digital need to apply different curves to r/g/b channels to produce a good b/w from a digital picture... this is the equivalent of applying 3 separate filters to the lens, and as much as i know, it couldn't be done... and after all is this a trick or not?

 

so the problem with this image shouldn't be "is this a trick or not?", but rather... is this trick being effective? how? and most of all... WHY?

I think it is a striking image; and the simplicity of the transformation applied gives it additional points in my world. The original unstretched is, as many have pointed out, quite average, but Paul managed to offer something that a lot of us responded to.

 

I almost feel like printing it out and laying it tilted on a table at eye level, so you can see it flattened from afar and stretched nearby. I praise the optical effect more than the image (striking as it is), after all that's what photography is about: Optics.

 

And what's this nonsense about defying laws of gravity? What nonsense, everything is still falling down, is it not? If it was whipped cream instead of sand would you think it still defied gravity?

 

Congratulations Paul!