long-time-exposures full moon

I know its rather late in the week, and this comment is unlikely to draw much notice, but I have been giving more thought to this photo, and would like to offer the following (bear with me though, as the logic may seem a bit perverse):

 

*IF* this photo were created in photoshop (I will take Gabi's word that it was not), would this photo still hold much, if any, appeal? I would suggest not. Again, the effect is spectacular (only because it is real), but if one were to create this photo via digital manipulation I think many would quickly amend their view(s). Specifically, you would be compelled to ask "what's the point?" As a digital manipulation it would be rather bland, mostly because of the lack of any real substance. So, does the fact that this was not digitally manipulated magically offer the viewer this missing substance? Of course not.

 

Also, as Chris Battey noted earlier, the fact that the moon is not visible denies us the opportunity to fully appreciate the captured phenomenon (i.e. it could just as easily be a floodlight) and as a result, further minimizes the substance of the photo.

 

I'm really not trying to be overly critical as I can assure you that if offered the same opportunity, I would likely have attempted the same photo... and probably with poorer results. But this does not change the fact that what the photo offers in visual impact it lacks in substance.

(Note to moderator: what follows is somewhat contentious, but entirely on topic, discussing issues that are of concern to all photographers. Please let it through.)

Have we ever seen trees and moon like this? From the perspective of something small and new? This photographer has taken common elements of a tired life and rearranged them in such a way that they convey something of the electricity that runs through things, including you and me. What more could we ask, of photographer or photography?

Her success in this can be measured in two ways: first, by the thrill of excitement and discovery one senses on seeing this the first time, and then subsequently; and, second, by the pitched squall it produces from numb skeptics and pinched dilettantes, which, like the background noise in the universe, seems in the face of good things to be always present.

Rather than following convention to create conventional views, or using her camera to approximate weakly someone else's style, this photographer has gone outdoors and very simply seen things new - and then taken a picture of it. This is what's so exciting about it. And this is how we can measure it.

O.k. I'm just wondering about one thing here....And that is because I like astrophotography and want to get into it more.

 

I'm GUESSING we are looking at a couple of minutes exposure time here. Just guessing from my (limited) experience. I say this because of the way the stars are just slightly oblong and not fully "trails".

 

How did you get the moon to look like it is standing still though? I've always figured that the moon tends to travel fairly quickly. How did you get a shot that didn't show this travel?

There have been several comments that this image would not be interesting if it turned out to be a Photoshop manipulation or a filter effect; but since it is a straight capture on film, it is interesting, even wonderful, and deserving of gushing praise and multiple exclamation marks.

 

I fail to understand these comments. Some of the "impact" is from lurid color shifts due to a combination of the film's response to the long exposure and to out-of-view campground lights. The star effect is also the result of diffraction of the moonlight by the palm fronds, as recorded by a long exposure on film. Remove these effects, which are due almost entirely to the photographic/film process, and one is left with a boring, indifferently composed, picture of two palm trees.

 

The scene didn't look like this. This photograph is entirely "about", and its impact is owed to, how moon- and campground-light are recorded by film in a long exposure. Why an image that is essentially an artifact of film response would have more merit than a Photoshop or darkroom manipulation of an equivalent boring picture of the two palms is beyond me.

 

 

Gabi,

Nice shot - I wonder if when you took this shot that you imagined all the dissenting voices it would bring out on the POW?

 

You got fanged by the frustrated tree trimmers association..

>>I agree with Tony and Brian: the right palm should be cut away<<

 

Then taken to task for this shot being a badly done attempt at a photo shop image...

>>it just it looks like something done in photoshop (and not done well either).<<

 

and then there was the "common sense & maturity brigade" reprimanding anyone with a sticky exclamation mark keys...

>>reminding me more of children wetting their pants than mature criticism.<<

 

Shucks, who'd a thunk?!

 

 

D. Thacker makes a very valid point up above... To further add to that - Gabi explained the circumstances in which it was shot - so it was hardly the full on pro location shoot with the brief from the client and the aesthetics approval committee.

 

Sure this shot is not the be all end all of photographic perfection... (as if there such a thing to begin with!)

 

But the shot does have a 'visual impact' and as long as were not all being pistol whipped into the "rule of thirds cult" or being conscripted to the "color cast correction chain gang" -

 

The shot is arguably aesthetically pleasing.

 

It's not the Photo Journo shot of the year illustrating the most gripping drama- but it does evoke a certain simple sense of wonder.

 

This is POW... Photo of the Week...

Not "Photo of the Century"...

Not the "Photo that the Fate of All Humanity Rests Upon"...

 

simply the Photo of the Week - so why judge the shot for something it's not?

 

Congrat's Gabi -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucas, your comments would apply to any criticisms of a Photo of the Week, or indeed of any image in photo.net.

 

If this is not to be simply a forum where only people who "like" an image are allowed to comment, then critical comments must be permitted. This is even more true of the Photo of the Week, which someone has chosen as one of the 52 most distinguished photos on photo.net out of hundreds of thousands that will be submitted each year. In addition to the usual discussion of the photo itself, the POW discussions properly dwell on whether the photo warrants its selection.

 

Even if one accepts the theory that the POW needs only be apt for provoking discussion, there still can't be a discussion unless different points of view are expressed. If this weren't a POW, my comment (assuming I bothered to make one) would have been a simple: "interesting effect; might be nice to see how it can be used with a more compelling subject." Since it is a POW, I feel justified in pointing out that the standard for seletion should be higher.

 

 

Bryan,

Your point about the purpose of POW is well taken. It should be a place for conjecture about an image - my point was that to judge the shot for not having some incredibly developed story and plot to it is rather silly. Reading what the shooter posted tells the story that is. Some even took it a bit further to say that even if it had been done in Photoshop it would have been a poor example. That's nonsense. It's a bit like saying "Dogs are dumb".. yeah they are - at being humans... but when it comes to being a dog - they're brilliant. So in this case why knock the shot for not having more story - it wasn't a pj shot nor was it a pre planned shot.

 

>>Since it is a POW, I feel justified in pointing out that the standard for seletion should be higher.

 

However as you can see from the range of comments above or on any of the other POW's that there has yet to be an agreed upon 'standard'... I don't think it's possible. Especially not in light of the arcane circumstances/methods in which POW's are chosen.

Lucas, I'm not criticizing Gabi for posting the photograph. Not every photo posted here is intended as a candidate for POW, and anyway she didn't pick it. She has described the circumstances in which the photo was posted. My criticism is directed (once again) at the POW selectors, this time for selecting a photograph which is noteworthy only for demonstrating some interesting film/lighting effects relevant to night photography.

There have been several comments that this image would not be interesting if it turned out to be a Photoshop manipulation or a filter effect; but since it is a straight capture on film, it is interesting, even wonderful, and deserving of gushing praise and multiple exclamation marks.

If you hope to learn something, assuming you do, first look at your assumptions. You seem to be assuming here that these comments somehow reflect on this image; from where I sit, it seems they reflect more on people's attitudes toward Photoshop, an attitude that is essentially (and understandably) this: that an image of something objectivly existing (a beautiful woman, say) has more value than a clever machine produced emulation of such an image.

I fail to understand these comments. Some of the "impact" is from lurid color shifts due to a combination of the film's response to the long exposure and to out-of-view campground lights. The star effect is also the result of diffraction of the moonlight by the palm fronds, as recorded by a long exposure on film. Remove these effects, which are due almost entirely to the photographic/film process, and one is left with a boring, indifferently composed, picture of two palm trees.

But the effects are demonstrably there - why would you wish to remove them? Remove the paint from a canvas. . . and you're left with a boring, repetitive texture.

We all know that photography is a process of discovery, one which is, at best, unpredictable. First, there is the discovery of what falls into place in your viewfinder; and then there is that which you find somewhere in the process of rendering the image on paper or on a viewing screen. Sure, you can and should strive to control all the variables in that process; but you'll never attain full control; and the happy accident will, happily, always happen. It's the same with any art. Half of the accomplishment lies in merely recognizing something special.

The scene didn't look like this. This photograph is entirely "about", and its impact is owed to, how moon- and campground-light are recorded by film in a long exposure. Why an image that is essentially an artifact of film response would have more merit than a Photoshop or darkroom manipulation of an equivalent boring picture of the two palms is beyond me.

See above for the answer to that rhetorical flourish. But how do you know what the scene looked like? And, anyway, does a Velvia sunset or sand and sea shot through a polarizer ever really look like that? What's the real objection here? Is the angle of view (taken, I hasten to point out, at the time and not afterward) too radical? When an artist succeeds in stripping away from the world the false comfort of the common, is that the crime? That her image doesn't trade in photographic cliches and herd expectations?

This one is one of those that one thinks... I wish I was there...

when does photo.net become "image.net", are photoshop creations no longer photos? when do we reduce ourselves to merely creating new compositions without respect to some sort of physical reality? I believe photography should remain grounded in external perception and exploration of the world. photography to me means going out and "taking" pictures, not "making". Some of the conversation earlier hinted at a reality of the filmic image vs. the false? manipulated digital image. (or an intrinsically false nature of a chemical process that captures the image on film) as if the filmic image was truth and a photoshopped image was not. what are your takes on this?

I stayed away from reading comments on POW all week, and upon reading them all this Sat. evening I am surprised that so many comments near the end of the week have gone un-deleted by our esteemed editor.

 

I think this photo is brilliant as is. It needs no manipulation or cropping in my opinion. The color shift is to be expected with such a long exposure. If any one of us were in the campground and spotted this site, and didn't go grab our tripod and camera, I would be dissapointed.

 

Wonderful image Gabi, and if it were digitally enhanced, it would still be a very nice piece of art.

 

 

 

 

Hey Gabi

Nice photo you got there.Kind of spooky

And remember you can`t please everyone

So keep the good work coming.

Greetings from Greenland

personally, i dont like nature photos who give an artificial feeling and the tree on the right makes the photo very artificial. I dont know, maybe it was one of your aim when taking this photo but I personally think that it would have been a lot better without that tree. I dont mean cropping by that. what I mean is you can erase the tree in the photo by using photoshop or stg. and leave that place empty. It can be a lot better.

When an artist succeeds in stripping away from the world the false comfort of the common, is that the crime? That her image doesn't trade in photographic cliches and herd expectations?

Doug, at the risk of overstepping my quota of comments for this thread and testing the patience of the moderator, allow me to reply.

I think my point (which actually was introduced here by Nick Scholte as a question) is that the elements of this image are a set of photographical cliches: an ultra-simple highly graphical composition; saturated, not to say lurid, colors; and a starburst, such as people used to do with nifty Cokin filters and now regularly do with Photoshop.

If these elements had actually been created with nifty filters, or assembled in Photoshop, people would have no trouble recognizing the result as kitsch. However, because the image was captured in-camera, its elements an artifact of film response to weird light and a long exposure, people are ga-ga for the image.

I should add that kitsch isn't all bad. It often takes great skill to produce it, and in this case, more skill was required to produce in-camera kitsch than the equivalent Photoshop kitsch would have required. (But perhaps I only think that because I have learned some Photoshop.) We can admire the skill and we can be technially interested in (and learn from) the light and film effects that the photo exhibits. But there isn't much to the image itself.

When I look at this photo, I feel like I'm dreaming. Perfectly exposed and composed.

Just love the technique used here. Reminds me of days of light painting in graveyards around town. Mystical light and hard to comprehend that it was actually taken at night time.

Superb!

Despite the tone of some of the negative comments made about this picture, I would like to argue for it to be left exactly as it is!

Both sides of the picture have energy which relates one side to the other, its like an explosion on the left and a rocket on the right.

 

The mixture of moonlight and street light adds to the drama.

 

Manipulating or cropping it would spoil it.

 

I'm just amazed that you saw the potential of the moment and had the skill to capture it knowing the diffficulties of estimating exposures at night on transperancy film - Bravo!

Superb!

I'm a little new to Photo Net Gabi and just saw this stunning picture. I love the colors and the effect. Just curious how long of an exposure did you use?

Great Shot, very dramatic!

Wow! Please make a wallpaper of this. This shot is so beautiful.

Definatly THE best shot Ive seen on this site.

 

Very well done!

This is one of the best photos found on photo.net. congratulations from would-be full moon photographer

Palms are primeval and fundamental, and here they are elegantly and masterfully revealed.