Wind Draperies

If this is not surreal, then I do not know what is. What I find remarkable is that the surreal effect was accomplished by manipulating essentially one variable: height, while holding width (and everything else) constant. Usually that is a big no-no, and it is rarely effective. In the context of Paul's larger body of work, I now think that it is pretty effective, although I would personally still prefer the straight nature shot as he found it.

 

Since I am beginning to repeat myself, I'll shut up now. . . .

 

--Lannie

Surrealism is the pure psychic automatism (see 1 below), by which one proposes to express, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all conscious moral or aesthetic self-censorship. Surrealism advocates the idea that ordinary and depictive expressions are vital and important, but that the sense of their arrangement must be open to the full range of imagination according to the Hegelian Dialectic. The Marxist dialectic and other theories, such as Fredian theory, also played a significant role in some of the development of surrealist theory and, as in the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse, surrealism contributed to the development of Marxian theory itself. Surrealist philosophy connects with the theories of psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. Freud asserted that unconscious thoughts motivate human behavior, and he advocated free association and dream analysis to reveal unconscious thoughts.

(1)automatism: suspension of the conscious mind to release subconscious images

This is much more than turning up the color saturation or elongating one dimension of a picture.

Surrealism originated in the late 1910's and early 1920's as a literary movement that experimented with a new mode of expression called automatic writing, or automatism, which sought to release the unbridled imagination of the subconscious. Officially consecrated in Paris in 1924 with the publication of the Manifesto of Surrealism by the poet and critic Andre Breton, Surrealism became an international intellectual and political movement. Breton, a trained psychiatrist, along with French poets Louis Aragon, Paul Eluard, and Philippe Soupault, were influenced by the psychological theories and dream studies of Sigmund Freud and the political ideas of Karl Marx. Using Freudian methods of free association, their poetry and prose drew upon the private world of the mind, traditionally restricted by reason and societal limitations, to produce surprising, unexpected imagery.

latter blurb from the Metropolitan Museum of Art
The full page on Surrealism according to Met--

Ok Mr Kent I agree that surrealism movement and philosphy is more profund then this image suggests...surrealism was a movement with evolving goals,experimentation and philosophy and maybe we use the term "Surrealism" for Paul's work too losely ...but we know that in the surreal image there is a hidden reality which we often have to identify ourselves ...today we used surrealism in a wider cxontext and in a converse way Paul's image seemed so tangible and real but we know it is not ..it is a place we feel is somwhere but we know it is nowhere...had Paul told us it was Mars instead of Namibia it would not have matterd really as far as the picture is concerned the "feeling" is there ..Paul proabably told us it is Nambia to tease our perceptions I amnot sure...in fact to be fair a friend of him living there told him he never saw it so he gave us a hint that this was not even there..:))) One has to be careful though how to present a pic like this and put Namibia on it without giving any explanation..it can create misconceptions.

"It is a shame that the increasingly repetitive discussion over manipulation has come at the

cost of ignoring his other photos of this beautiful part of the world."

 

How is it a shame? He lost credibility to many of us on here. All it takes is one fake

image....then yer' DONE like Brain Walski:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fake.shtml

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images8/iraq.jpg

 

I know some don't care and just want to be wowed by the end result, but it crosses my

personal ethic to do this. It makes a mockery of the craft of photography. Neither of the

two examples above were just changes done Ansel Adams style, they changed the content

of the original moment, period.

 

There is SO much more beauty and extraordinary moments left to be recorded in the

world. I have dedicated my life to *Documenting* that as artfully as I can. But I will never

cross the line of altering content. I have zero respect for that. In this world of increasing

lies and half truths, people want something to believe in. It is hard enough as it is with

reality TV and all the garbage on the internet. Why take a brilliant place like the dunes in

Namibia and vault them skyward several hundred feet that they would ever be? What is the

point of that?

Yes. Photography is used in more ways than just record reality (photojournalism). And I don't understand these arguments of truth. Pure record (or just one frame) of reality can lie.

 

BTW. Interesting pic, I agree with that title issue - it almost killed the photo. And I don't like the frame personally.

 

Surrealistic landscapes are more effectively done today with computer programs. Some of the best can be found here: http://www.linochette.de/ or here: http://www.martin-brunker.de

 

Regards,

...is not exactly the same as changing it with a software, but indeed, it's comparable.

 

Now, would you agree, that changing a landscape's proportions with a fish-eye needs a good reason to use this fish-eye ? And that the story would be entirely different with another kind of shot - i.e not a landscape...?

 

To embrace a very wide site within one frame, a photographer has only 2 choices available: a panoramic, or a fish eye. Then he may have a reason to choose this or that solution.

 

What we need to see, is that PShop offers an infinite universe of possibilities - not just 2.

 

So, aren't we entitled to question WHY the photographer would choose to distort this landscape, just as we would ask for the reasons for a choice of lens...?

 

And to me, I can see no good reason for this landscape to be presented this way. But that's just me, and hopefully someone can show me a great reason for manipulating this desert this way... It's not enough, to just say "that's the autor's vision" or such... because it's not a true explanation. Please explain to me the autor's vision, the message he is proposing - and which I can't see...

 

I agree with Daniel Bayer (nice to read your prose again, Daniel, btw), that this POW changes the CONTENT of the picture. But to me, IF this is not a documentary work, everything's permitted - unfortunately, it doesn't mean that everything's good and great...

 

I could provide 2 examples of images of mine that are very distorted (one by the lens, one by a PS manipulation), but in both cases, they wouldn't be landscapes... Why distort this landscape ?

Moderator comment: while comments regarding surrealism and other more general topics are interesting per se, I would like to ask you to stick a bit more to writing a critique of the image. Manipulated or not, there's still an image with shapes, light, composition etc.

Also, please consider the selected image an editorial decision, a given. If you can't agree with a selection, for whatever reason, feel free to skip a week. I'm sure we'll come up with something "better" (uh-oh...) next week.

The lighting (especially on the top left corner) is quite poor or, at least, not as good as it could be in better conditions. It seems to me that the scene hasn't been exploited to its maximum possibilities.

I'm surprised that so many like the composition. The left edge is cropped so tightly to the largest black peak that I lose interest in the photo. I do like the relative sizes of the elements. The tiny ridges in bottom left corner are fun to compare to the larger ridges throughout. Still, they are crammed into the bottom left corner. I'd like to see more of them in proportion to the rest of the frame.

I think that given the number of responses, this photo worked admirably at what it may well have been designed to do in the first place. I mean you have to admit, you all are talking about it.

> So, aren't we entitled to question WHY the photographer would

 

> choose to distort this landscape, just as we would ask for the

 

> reasons for a choice of lens...?

 

I think so and the answer is evident to me; also it is proposed above in this thread. Geologists exaggerate the vertical scale of terrain to make the structure and relationships of landforms more apparent. I believe that this picture does this successfully. The exaggerated height allows me to trace the ridges from dune to dune much more easily than the squished versions that have been posted in this thread. I feel that the photographer is trying to draw my attention to the structure of the dunes, which he feels create their beauty, that I might otherwise miss. He succeeds and I appreciate it.

Mike says:" I do think that dishonestly misrepresenting pictures is reprehensible. Did Paul misrepresent this? It looks like he wants to pass it off as real, while hinting otherwise, to make a game for himself out of seeing whether people figure it out. Others can decide for themselves whether this fits into the concept of disclosure or the concept of deception. I interpret it as obnoxious behavior; and it goes fundamentally against the spirit of photo.net, which is supposed to be educational... thus requiring openness about techniques."

In Dr. Paul Godard's website - the POW image above is titled "Surreal"

His bio says: "The scenery that surrounds him becomes abstract..."

Also - Please see Paul Godard's comment above....

I was honest...

I did not say that the photo was unmanipulated. To say the opposite would have been too obvious...

Paul Godard , July 03, 2006; 04:15 P.M. (edit | delete)

Perhaps this is confusing ... but the checkbox at submittal says

This image is unmanipulated.

The image as submitted states Unknown or Yes (which I believe means he did not check the box) and is technically correct. However, 99% of all images read this way. Perhaps the box should be changed to say:

This image is manipulated

with the assumption being that it is not manipulated rather than the other way around.

If you're going to refer to his PN bio, how about "The message he delivers is one of purity, serenity and above all humility for the natural beauty that surrounds us." You're trying to make a connection between "abstract" and "surreal" even though they mean very different things. The former refers to several of his close up compositions (like the one referenced above.) The "surreal" reference appears only on his own site, not here, and is therefore inadmissible evidence in the case you're trying to make.

 

You're also overlooking the most obvious deception - the title. It refers, in detail, to a specific time and place, even though such a place does not now exist, never has, and never will.

 

That's why Art Wolfe got into trouble calling his collection of composites "migrations". Never happened.

The subtitle says "sand dunes at sunrise," etc., which is a pretty clear statement that these are not wind eroded mountains or hills. If they are dunes, as Paul says that they are, it is pretty obvious that the image has been manipulated, and the only "deception" is for that very brief moment before one realizes that something is going on.

 

Carl says to Mary that "The 'surreal' reference appears only on his own site, not here, and is therefore inadmissible evidence in the case you're trying to make."

 

So. . . Photo of the Week has come down to accusations and a trial. To me this is a rather bizarre development regarding the innocent posting of an image that Paul never imagined would get this much attention. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. . . .

 

--Lannie

Surrealism--

Whenever there's a doping scandal in the Tour de France, someone always makes the argument that since everyone's doping, it's impossible to stay competitive if you don't dope yourself. This is the kind of shit that ruins my enthusiasm for photography, when people start arguing that all photos are probably manipulated one way or another these days, and start photoshopping their news photos because they're too incompetent to get an interesting shot through their lens, and start arguing that manipulated photos are okay because paintings aren't true to life either.

Photos are not paintings! They are photos! Why can't people admit that there's a fundamental difference between photographs and manipulated art pieces that are derived from photos? I find this really frustrating.

"[T]here's a fundamental difference between photographs and manipulated art pieces that are derived from photos. . . ."

 

That's a pretty simple dichotomy, Will. Which category does Velvia fit into?

 

--Lannie

What a discussion!

 

I would like to add a few words (in fact quite a few) to conclude this agitated discussion about surrealism, computer manipulations, even honesty, and fortunately photography.

 

My humble vision of photography is to share my feelings and inspire people. It's what I mean when I say that my universe becomes abstraction. What is really important to me, to put my message across, is that the final image expresses my soul image of the reality, as I felt it.

 

When I posted this photograph, I was curious to see the reactions of other photographers, that's all. I posted this image as "Wind Cathedral", a non un-manipulated image of a real landscape of sand dunes in Sossusvlei, Namibia, and waited for comments... I even replied to one of the first comment, making it obvious that the image was not un-manipulated.

 

BTW, I did not appreciate at all seeing my image manipulated by one of the participants to the discussion.

 

Maybe this person, as well as a few others, would have preferred to read the caption of the image : squeezed panorama of sand dunes, Sossusvlei, Namibia (manipulated in Photoshop : scale 14% horizontally)?

 

Sorry but I do not agree. You miss the point!

 

Now that everyone knows about my little secret place, this is my comment...

 

First of all, I have 27368 images in my image bank and only 21 are "manipulated". The other 27347 images are not manipulated, except that the real scene was interpreted by using different films, color or b&w, even digital sensors, different lenses, including fish-eye or even ultra wide angle, scanned by different software, color-corrected, viewed on different monitors and sometimes printed on different media.

 

Manipulation is not my forte. I also believe in the truth. However I can appreciate any kind of expression, especially when carrying a strong message.

 

I would be curious to know who has been to the Namib desert and has sensed the magnitude of these gigantic sand dunes. I went twice recently and I shot a lot during these 2-3 weeks. The best shots are under 2 portfolio on my web site : Time Wind & Namib Desert. Although I love these images which portray my photographic style and carry my message across, almost none is giving me the same sense of magnitude that these huge sand dunes provoked in me.

 

I do not take a lot of panoramic shots, simply because I find details more attractive and interesting to show. People often only look at the big picture, only a few go deeper into the landscape and isolate a pure part of it. However, in the Namib desert, I was tempted to shoot some very wide panorama, sometimes 200-300 degrees, because I was alone in the desert and I wanted to emphasize one's smallness in this big landscape. Back home, I stitched these panorama and printed most of them, some 8 m long. They are very impressive, believe me! And they have enough detail to show the driver with sunglasses in the white Toyota hi-lux in the bottomleft corner of the posted image (this is the human scale).

 

Now comes the little secret...

 

As I was trying to find the best way to display these panoramic images on my web site, something happened. All these new panorama were wrongly coded as landscape and appeared in a "very" squeezed format on my monitor. And when I saw the "Wind Cathedral", I said to myself... this is it; this image reproduces perfectly the majestic presence I experienced in the desert. At first I was showing both versions of the same image on a poster to a lot of people, but very quickly people encouraged, convinced and even insisted that I only show the version that you all know now.

 

There is no intention to fool anyone, simply teasing a little bit, maybe.

 

My last words...

 

Thank you all for sharing your comments, and thank you, PhotoNet, for selecting this photograph for this week.

For as long as you've been on this site and read countless discussions on manipulation, do you really not know where Velvia falls?

Carl, does this mean that you accept the dichotomy that Will gave us?

 

Velvia is right up there with turning up the saturation on Photoshop, in my opinion, neither bad nor good in itself, but definitely a form of manipulation. There are matters of degree on manipulation, and that is why I challenge the simplistic dichotomy.

 

In the instant case, i.e., Paul's photo, I would say that exaggerating the vertical scale is unmistakable and obvious manipulation, also neither bad nor good in itself, rather to be judged by the final result.

 

What do you think about all these things?

 

--Lannie

Since the discussion of this photo has revolved overwhelmingly around manipulation, perhaps including this link will not be considered off-topic:

 

http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/ImageManipulation/ImageManipulation2.html

 

--Lannie

Here's another great discussion from Mike Spinak's Journal:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004a3r&tag=

 

--Lannie