A Monk's peace with the day's end.

I find it interesting and ironic that so often I see critiques about how lighting this or framing that or too dark or too light, and I want to say-"It's all subjective and everyone has his/her opinion and photographs are one way I see people interpreting the world around them and capturing a moment in time. This is an awesome shot, so aside from the largness which I agree is harder to see all of, I wouldn't touch a damn thing about this. OK, so the robe is not all visible, that's the mystery to me.

the texture and warm lighting with the subtle earthy tones, make this a great picture. I think the lighting is fine (assuming it is natural) sure in a studio you can control it or on posed shots, but this looks like a better candid photo than most would catch in a lifetime.

 

Personally I have always like the affect of dappled light through the forest, however it has rarely transfered to photography well becuase it is frozen. the draw for me is that the light moves. In this case the light doesn't seem too strong, I don't really notice the spot on his robes until it is pointed out, I think to me it seems well balanced with the brighter portions of the carved stone.

A couple of comments have come up here that I thought were interesting. First, I am

going to post my suggested cropping for reference.

 

I think Mary did make a point that I felt worked with the crop, but not so much as is. The

bright column, upper right does balance the bright robes lower left for me when cropped.

It creates a nice diagonal pull of the eye across the image with the mystery unfolding in

the space between. Without the crop, I feel that the imbalance remains and it is difficult

for the column to hold up against the lower left edge.

 

As to leaving room for a magazine masthead or for a designer, that is great, as long as

you aren't the photographer who has to do it!?! Anyway, those stories can be for another

time, but there is a point being lost here, this is not a magazine, brochure or ad. This

image was posted as a standalone. If I have to give an art director or designer space, it

doesn't mean that I will present the photo in my portfolio with the extraneous space, if it

weakens the photo. Here, I think it does and as a presentation piece would eliminate it if

it were mine. But as Daniel says, it is subjective and he likes it.

I just figured out what people mean by the robe missing. The monk has his hand by the door,

thereby lifting that side of the robe into the light which would otherwise be in darkness as

well.

A pleasant mood with dramatic lighting and a good composition that shows that the "rule of thirds" doesn't always apply and that motion or (in this case) direction don't have to be towards the center of the frame. My most significant dislikes are: the unrealistically high contrast. A lower contrast film would have allowed a slight opening of the shadows but would not change the overall mood. I also think the distracting bright spots at the bottom of the robe and the upper left edge of the door could be eliminated by cropping to a roughly square frame. This would keep all the necessary elements, remove the distracting ones, and focus attention on the face and the carvings on the door. It would also give more prominence to the figure in the door that seems to be looking approvingly over the monk's shoulder.

When shadows are very deep and dark, the human eye does not see detail in the shadow area. To pull detail out of the shadow by any type of manipulation either in a darkroom or PS and make sure you have all the detail in the highlights is not how we see when there is strongly uneven lighting. To change it so there is detail in both highlights and shadows pulls it into the realm of 'medium' and makes it mediocre -- no excitement from the contrast which is superb here.

 

Too often, photographs that might have had an element of excitement and wow about them have been worked into this urge for a curious 'zone' system that evens everything out. What a loss.

 

Conni

Constance, I whole heartedly agree. So much so that I have actually trained my self to see

light this way and recognize that kind of opportunity. My big influences in this style are David

Alan Harvey, Jay Maisel, Eric Meola and Peter Turner.

 

It is the "Art" of underexposure, some like it, some don't. I have to laugh at how many

complain they want more dynamic range in a digital SLR or use HDR merge to make a blah

looking image. The look of that just gets flatter and flatter and flatter.......bleh!

 

I am such a "light-snob" haha!

Attractive image, interesting discussion. I want to chime in on the photoshopping points.

 

Daniel, I often manipulate tones and contrast in photoshop on digital images, for better or for worse. After examining works by people like Ansel Adams, I realized such manipulations have gone on for a long time -- the fact that I do it in photoshop rather than a darkroom seems irrelevant to me. I'm surprised that you would not consider manipulating light in a photograph via photoshop, and imply that to do so would be to "fake it." Would you feel the same way dodging and burning in the darkroom?

 

Having said this, sometimes one can push the issue too far, whether in a darkroom or photoshop, so as to "fake" it, I agree with that, and have done it myself at times, deliberately and not. Also, whether or not its effective to manipulate is a different story.

 

I don't agree, however, that pulling detail out of dark areas necessarily flattens out a picture. I don't think there's any question that some DSLRs (for example, mine, a Canon 10D) have somewhat limited dynamic range. I can distinctly recall taking certain photos and noticing that detail that was apparent to my naked eye was not apparent in the digital image and needed to be "pulled out" in photoshop to achieve the representation of the "reality" I was seeking to display.

 

Having said all this, I like your image as is, and don't particularly feel a need to see detail in the shadow areas. My only minor issue was to at first want his face brightened slightly to better balance the brightness of the wall on the upper right, which is where my eye was pulled almost immediately. But after looking for a time, I'm not so sure it would do very much, and might negatively affect the mood. Its the kind of thing I would attempt in photoshop and as likely as not reject in the end.

 

Also, hats off to you, Daniel, for your participation in this discussion. Thanks for speaking candidly about your work and approach. I offer you these thoughts in the same vein.

I don't mind the use of photoshop, I have to use it daily to get things done. I just get really

disappointed by the rampant use of it and have it being served up as straight

photography. I use to frequent Photo.net a lot back in 2000-2001 and then all of the

sudden, tons of computer art types of images started appearing. Fine for some, but not

for me.

 

Many would argue that the use of limited contrast films such as the one I have shown here

are just as bad a photoshop as they truncate the actual scene to the limits of the exposure

realm.

 

Good discussion, lets keep er' rolling!

There is just someting about this current discussion that wont let me not comment.

 

First, the discussion about the plight of digital manipulation or the use of photoshop here

should be coined as the "misuse" of these things. PS is a tool. The problems described in

its use are largely the result of a beginner trying something, someone with limited visual

sophistication or the result of someone "trying" something new. Not the inherent problem

with the use of the software's features.

 

Second, to even state that a camera captures reality is a bit presumptuous. The films we

choose are chosen because of the way they translate reality that pleases us(or at least

comes closest). Digital cameras have their own issues. Can we really claim that all of

these manufacturers know, and can replicate, the reality we see?

 

The image here is a manipulation even in how it was described as made--as are all

photographs. Possibly it reflects the film as it was, but it was exposed for a result. The

eye would see more detail in the shadows than even film would that was not

underexposed and should someone make a different decision, use HDR to get the detail,

who is to say it could not be even a better photo of this scene.

 

My point is that Daniel made some decisions that "manipulated" this scene's reality to what

we are looking at. Obviously that is what he should do, but let's not trash the use of PS or

other tools--Just as with bad photos, it is not the fault of the tools used, responsibility lies

solely with the creator of the image.

I rant therefore I am.

 

I am a photojournalist who branches off into features, stock and fine art, nothing more,

nothing less. This is where my thinking is from so that is the way I approach everything I

shoot. Even a landscape gets journalistic treatment. I like a challenge and this method

does it for me. The other thing is that I like to spend more time shooting than in front of

the computer ( today is filled with invoicing, disk burning and all that lovely photographer

stuff ).

 

A light search of my posting history will reveal that I am planning on shooting less digital

and more......Kodachrome. It's still around, I'm still around so if I apply my self, images will

happen on a single, glorious piece of film.

 

Enjoy!

I think it's a bit of a stretch to refer to this image as having been manipulated - by traditional means or otherwise. I think it's fair to say that we ALL would be attracted to this scene photographically in the same way, that is we would have been attracted to the beautiful warm lighting on selected parts of the scene and the high contrast that helps set them off - basic human visual system stuff. Daniel used spot metering to retain the true color and capture as much details as possible in the brightest areas. Call it "artistic" or "manipulation" if you like, but to me it's simply the application of proper exposure technique to capture what I think we would all agree the image is about.

 

So no, it's hard to imagine that anyone would want to interpret this scene using HDR or other contrast reducing techniques unless they were really convinced that there was a good reason to sacrifice the colors and contrast in order to provide us with what may or may not be interesting shadow detail. I think the popularity of HDR techniques on this site (I haven't seen it in the real world yet) is due to it's unphotographic (read "artistic") properties rather than because low contrast interpretations are an "improvement". Time will tell.

It seems to me that the "manipulation" discussion was sparked by a simple factual error:

 

~ When shadows are very deep and dark, the human eye does not see detail in the shadow area. To pull detail out of the shadow ... is not how we see... ~

 

Shadows would need to be *very* dark before the human eye would fail to see detail in them. Normally the eye adjusts instantly to differences in brightness, so that objects in light with a 2 to 3 stop difference in brightness (for example) may look roughly the same to us. In most cases, pulling a bit of detail out of shadow yields an image that more closely corresponds to how we see with the naked eye.

 

The shadow areas in the monk photo are almost fully black. Had we been on the scene looking with the naked eye, they most certainly would not have looked that dark. (Try it at home and see.)

 

Daniel underexposed slightly for dramatic effect -- a familiar technique for shooting chromes -- and the result is a beautiful image. But it is not the way the scene looked to the naked eye.

All photographs are manipulations of reality. In everyday life, people rarely notice the details that can be found in the fragments of time we record with our little black boxes. I'm not saying that photographs can't be documentary, but they are never purely objective reality. Photographic reality is always confined to the vision of the photographer and by the perception of the viewer. Reality is fluid, constantly in motion, and can never be truly captured.

 

Now that I'm off my sope box, I'd like to commend you on a fantastic image. I think I'd like to see more space at the bottom and less at the top, but It's a great capture none-the-less.

 

-James

The light is great and the moment seems sincere.. which, I guess, is'nt easy to do in such a cliche-esque (??) situations with so-called 'cultural people'. I think no one mentionned how natural and peaceful looking the man is.. I wonder how aware of your presence he was? To me, the twinkle in the eyes and the slight smile makes the photo.

 

If I had to mention a flaw, it would be the composition. Every part of the photo is eye-pleasing, but the connection and 'reading' of the picture is not easy. I can't suggest any impovements.. I think it's the central colomn that makes a sort of geometrical decomposition, and I don't like that.

 

I don't see what the PS discussion has to do with anything here.. and it would be nice not to see large and horrible treatments just above that spoils the feeling.. at least put a link :/

 

Cheers

It is if you squint really hard :-) In abscence of my spot meter I do that sometimes to get a rough idea of the contrast range.

 

I agree with Oliver. The light is certainly beautiful, but for me, the monk's expression is engaging and lasting. He is caught in a moment of reflection, much as I, the viewer, am captivated by the photograph.

 

cheers,

Aaron

Daniel, this is a lovely image. It is definitely the capturing of a 'moment' or to me, there is a spirit there. I think it's the Monks face, coupled with the movement of his robe. The light is secondary to me, but just adds even more to a lovely shot.

 

With regards to dynamic range. I find that all a bore. Is the image pleasing? Yes. Does it touch you in some way? Yes.

 

This is what photography is about, regardless of whether it is manipulated or not. It's the end result that matters.

 

I personally have issue with those that think that manipulated images are fake. Film is fake in that it does not capture reality. It comes nowhere close to capturing reality, and that is it's beauty for me. It takes real life and turns it into something else. Same for a traditional dark room print, or a digital one. It is down to the artist / photographers vision. If you have the vision and the skill to produce what you envisage, then that is what photography (for me) is all about.

 

This is a lovely image. The lack of detail in the shadow areas adds mystery to me. Surely there is beauty in inperfection? ;-)

 

Regards.

Hi, Daniel...

Looking at thisimage today again, after a couple of years - and on a different monitor - I do find the darkness a bit extreme, I must say, but within reasonable limits. Besides that, I fully understand why the posted image was framed with loads of space at the top - allowing for a possible title or comment in a potential publication.

 

That said, I must say the subject matter of this particular image is very familiar to me, and dearest to me as well, since I traveled Asia long ago looking for such images and opportunities on my way. Temples at sunset or shortly before sunset were always good places to go to, hoping to catch something worth keeping.

 

So I'm not all that astonished by the present picture, and there are some pictures in daniel's folders, that are certainly more original... But... at the same time, I really like this carved walls, and I feel the light and the monk + wall all converge towards a very nice scene.

 

In fact I have a very similar picture somewhere, which I took in Northern Thailand, involving a CHILD monk. This child's face on my pix was, to me, really memorable, and the lighting conditions were similar to what I see here, BUT... I wasn't fortunate enough to catch this child in front of such a beautiful wall - and that makes my picture much less interesting, inmy view, than Daniel's picture. Whereas I met in Bali similar walls in similarlighting conditions - but there wasn't any monk there at that time...:-) In short, it's the meeting of light + monk + wall, which, to me, is the true value of this week's POW. Very nice.

Perfect exposure and crop. I wouldn't change a thing.

This image excells on nearly all levels IMO. It's beauty comes from its artistic sensibility

and the Artists desire for personal expression. It seems to me that the settings on our

cameras are meant to help us attain the personal reality which will separate our work from

others. Daniels desire to "paint" the scene with the camera (not PS) is what photography is

all about, right? He has made a sensitive image that adds poetry to the actual scene. The

only suggestion I could make , would be compositionally. The monk is gazing toward the

light. In effect the light is the main subject, as our monk yearns to absorb the last rays of

the day. The picture has been divided in half by the edge of the door, giving equal

importance spacially to the left or right. I think that is the pictures only fault. I would like

to "feel" the light more with more room for it on the left. The monk is just too close to the

left edge. If you keep the picture as is and pull out the left side to make a square

composition, the emotion would have room to breathe and expand the moment. The

space above the monk was well perceived, but there is no balance on the left. Maybe

better if shot horizontally instead of vertically. I feel , as a viewer that my experience

mirrors that of the monk. I appreciate the light too, as it reflects off the wall toward me.

Thanks, Daniel

This is an exceptional image. IMO, the lovely color pallete/quality of light is

what makes this image really stand out above many similar portraits. The

colors give this image an oil painting look & feel I find very

pleasing. Well done!!!! Cheeers!!!

Agree with Carl Root and Marc Gs last comments.

 

I too am a fan of getting the exposure right for the area of the image that I deem the most important and letting everything else fall where it may.

 

 

Daniel has the gift of seeing the fleeting opportunity, the ability to capture several correctly exposed and composed images with a variety of framing options in the few seconds that the event occurs. The man is a photojournalist, and a damn good one at that, just like our other great PJ here Micheal Ging.

 

 

Humph, others that would stand there saying "Gee that looks nice!" and forget they are holding a camera prefer to take snipe shots referring to "photoshop manipulation" and the like and ignore the fact that every thing has coalesced in this image into what HB defined as the "Decisive Moment".

Apologies in the dyslexic moment of spelling your name Michael, in the above post.

your portfolio gives so much to learn!!! Thanks for sharing.

I think there is a bit of the conversation missing here in terms of decisive moments and

decisions made about exposure.

 

Daniel made certain decisions, and in my opinion good ones, when he made this

exposure. These decisions were made for a result on his media, transparency film. If we

instead shoot negative film, or possibly digital(I don't shoot digital seriously), we may

make exposure decisions that give us lattitude in the darkroom or on the computer later.

We may visualize the same result, but exploit the characteristics of our media and our

ability to do post work. This way of working is just as valid as any other and involves just

as much knowledge of exposure etc. It is it's own decisive moment.

 

There is a lot of "saving" in post, but, just as Daniel has done here, informed decisions

made to meet ones working method and media, should be the goal we strive to achieve.