Untitled

I have an issue with this photo and the current line of discussion taking place and in my mind one of three things should have to happen. We start out by looking at the information given in the "Details" section.

 

Rarindra indicates very clearly that this photo is "Unmanipulated".

 

So either it is indeed unmanipulated, and in the spirit of PN we have to accept it as such and accept that it was not manipulated and then we can focus on the merit of what was captured;

 

Or Rarindra made an unfortunate click in the wrong place and this image is indeed manipulated, and then I hope Rarindra would join the party and set matters straight;

 

Or Rarindra intended to indicate that this image is unmanipulated and there is some PN members who feel it was manipulated, well then I am afraid - here we go again!

 

I am too clueless to know manipulation when I see it, so I really hope to hear from either the photographer or from more knowledgeable people around here to help us in the right direction.

 

JH

Hi JH

 

Did you click on the link I left? I think if you go there you might find some answers to your questions in an earlier discussion about this photo. I, too, would like to see the matter clarified. Thanks for bringing this point into the discussion.

In looking through Rarindra's portfolio, I see this one green and gold that shows the green foliage John speaks about. I don't see the cloning marks around the figure on that one, so I think the marks I am seeing were left in the attempt to make the light overall golden on this photo. I would give Rarindra the benefit of doubt on the marking of this one as unmanipulated. It may well have been an unfortunate error given the language barriers that might be present.

Tank you very much for choose my picture as a discussion material. [sorry for

bad English]. This was taken near my home at a small lake in West Jakarta.

The weather was very good at the day and I imagined that it would be nice if

the net is goldy and the background is dark. But actually the background was

not as dark as you see in my pic.

 

I set my camera at 1/500 f5,6, WB: shade. Then I edited in PS with some burn

at backgound so the light upper right is so dramatic and more bright. I choose

selective colour (blue) for his cloting for higher blue and reduce some yellow.

Some dodge at clothing too. I got the blue-yellow contrast overall my pic.

 

I really dont know if this technic "manipulated" or "unmanipulated". I am new

here (PN). But all elements here is actual. I just darken-lighten at some area.

Tank you.

And thank you Rarindra. It's a beautiful photo, and your comments here are very valuable.

 

As for what 'manipulated' means in Photo.net, it seems to mean that only colour sides are 'unmanipulated', which means that you're not allowed to mark a photo as unmanipulated if you've done more than correct levels and contrast. For some reason it's also permitted to turn colour photos to black and white, but not to add colour to black and white photos. All very strange, and possibly best to mark every photo as 'manipulated' just to be safe.

 

I think your photos would make very popular coffee-table books and calendars.

Thank you so much for the explanation Rarindra. I must say your portfolio is breath taking. This particular one shows some flaws (in my opinion and always open to correction if convinced of the error of my ways).

 

I wonder if you could give us a link to the magazine you mention? And congratulations on the publication! Could we, please, see a link to this magazine and your publication in it? Have you been published elsewhere?

 

Quote:

 

"Tank you everyone...

Rarindra Prakarsa Photo.net Patron, September 19, 2006; 05:49 A.M.

This is main photo for my profile in Ukrainan Digital Photographer Magazine, this month edition. Special tanks to Mr. Zubenko."

 

unquote

Tank you everyone. And special to Philip for manipilated-unmanipulated

explanation. I am too lazy to read the PN rules. I just uncheck unmanipulated.

For Meehan My profile is published in Digital Photographer Magazine

(Ukraine version) September Edition, 2006. There are 11 pages and 19

photos. Tank you

Thanks again Rarindra.

 

Now, I wonder what happened on the back of the person? In my photo editor, I see colors outside of the actual figure of the man in blue. I want the gold color to be right next to the blue, but there is a smudge of bluish color in there? Did you use the cloning tool, or why is there that smudge in there?

 

I don't see these smudge marks on the green photo of the same man in your portfolio.

 

I wonder the same (smudge tool) about the reflection of the net. The reflection (lower in the frame) is a lot darker than the actual net you have shown us. Do reflections show differences in form than the original shows? Difference in degrees of color.. darker? I see the area just beneath the net. That spot makes more sense to me than does the golden area you have created to look like a reflection. The reflection lower in the frame appears to me to be a blodge of light unrelated to the actual net, created by dragging the smudge tool around. Very creative.

Thank you very much for all the additional information Rarindra - it is much appreciated.

 

In response to Philip Coggan's comments, granted - it is very difficult to determine the proverbial golden line. I think when you start adding or take away elements from the original image you are in manipulation/alteration water.

 

Back to the star of the show. Rarindra this is a very good photo and I especially enjoy the play of light. The only reason I prefer to know beforehand whether it is unmanipulated/manipulated is to consider that fact when commenting. Mostly it is so that I don't make an arse of myself by singing the praises of something when everyone but me knows it is a composite, for example ;-). I learned the hard way.

 

Either way, congratulations on your POW. I will go visit your portfolio for some more.

 

JH

Oh, how I wish I could make photograhs in your style. This one is marvelous, but pales in comparison with some of the others in your portfolio. You have learned to manipulate PhotoShop extremely well, and if that's bad, shame on you. I happen to see it as good. Very good!

 

It is almost a sure thing that if I make good comments to anyones art on POW that the masses of you come down hard on the poor photographer. Maybe I should just keep out of it entirely, but Raromdra Prakarsa has moved me so much that I cannot pass by and say nothing.

 

His portfolio contains many similarly intensely hued dramatic photographs that I wonder how the elves found this one in particular to be of interest. Others are better. I love his compositions and use of darkening backgrounds with the wonderful brilliance of the light in various colors depending on the picture. Yes, he manipulated his image. He made art of interesting photographs. I can see in this photo that the mans blue clothing was not repeated in the water's reflection, but need it be. We can all find minor and trivial changes we might have made which Rarindra did not see the need for or didn't notice, but that does not change his artistic skill in my view. No I would't change any of his croppings either -- at least not more than a millimeter or two. Excellent work.

 

Willie the Cropper

As a moment is a great one, and it's not one of a city person with a 9-5 schedule, blocked in the traffic with his laptop and cellphone ringing from his wife etc...Kids,animals and original times of people in the lost nature, are always out of time, making them very precious. The weaknessses here are elsewhere...

 

All images from Raninda are beautiful, but should be posted under digital alterations. There are photographers that think that even cropping is a manipulation. Photographers with a great background and even greater photographs. Digital era has brought many easy bringings but to say that along with them Photoediting and unreal manipulation in a PC on the image taken by a person, makes this result a "photograph" is (I think) wrong.

 

This comment of course has nothing to do with the aesthetic part of the result, which I again say, it's beautiful, but not a photograph.

 

It's like Raninda has made a standard procedure through all his shots, making selective lighting on an upper corner, higher saturation. and selective colouring, dodging burninng.

 

Aesthetics play a great role on being "sucessful", but that doesnt

mean it's the only one, to baptize one a photographer.

 

In an age where everything is possible and hiding a Leica under a

hat is not necessary cause even a cellphone can take pictures, the

idea of playing with an image making it up, calling it a photo, is

maybe, the idea of photo.net and it's use of word as a photo.

 

When ANY photo can take a 3/3 just because, and ANY digital IMAGE with photoediting manipulation can take the name of a photo, or photo of the week, originality goes bye-bye along with basic photography technics, composition, lighting techniques etc.

 

Should we even bother to learn all that, or there will be always, virtual sets on our PC screen that will make us OUR wanted image to call a photo?

 

As a conclusion, Raninda captures the lost hidden small moments of life, but makes them shine fake like a fairy tale. What he could do IMO, is make these ageless moments REALLY ageless without performing any kind of manipulation, making the word photo make also a meaning.

 

Congratulations Raninda.

Moderator note:

Billy - normally I edit or delete comments that get into the old "digital is not photography" debate. We are not here to question whether digital or darkroom work on images is right or wrong - a photo or not a photo. We are here to critique this image. Discussions about what is or is not photography is appropriate in the Philosophy Forum or Casual Conversations Forums only.

As to the discussion of the digital manipulation - That is very valid but must be limited to the effectiveness or lack of in this instance.It is permissable to point out flaws or suggest improvments.

I think it has been established that the photographer has a language barrier and did not mean to pass this off as unmanipulated - so that discussion is closed as well.

The selection of photos for this forum seems to have gotten much better recently so it seems like a shame that they are hidden at the bottom of the page. This website is similar to a newspaper and in my mind that means that the cover story should appear "above the fold."

 

I don't want to beat a dead and decayed horse but I will anyway (everyone else is doing it Mom). All photography is a manipulation. It is a simple fact so stop fighting it and get on with the rest of your life.

 

The photograph is breathtaking which I am sure at least one person must have stated already. Do we need anything more than that to be happy in this life? You can't make the photograph any better because it is done, complete, finished.

Excellent shot, really at golden moment. Masterly done post processing.

A great image ruined by an oversaturated experiment in tone-mapping, very likely with Photomatrix or a similar program. The colors are not natural or real. The gold color of the netting is blown out. I've never seen a time of day on fresh water or at the seashore that would yield colors like in this image. I'm a true believer in post-processing but the final image needs colors that bear a close resemblance to something of this world. The colors of this image fail in that regard.

I have seen golden sunsets like this; maybe a bit saturated but fascinating. I'd have probably lightened up a bit the left side of the shot. None the less, it's a shot of great impact and beauty.

never mind the professional part but the visul part is the rarest one... Omong the best up to now... Congratulations is the word that Rarindra deserves in it's whole meaning...

Whatever manipulation to the tones has or hasn't been done by the photographer, it hasn't altered the fundamentals of the image, and I think the effect is very painterly. I think that this type of photography links back to the discipline of oil painting and other "arts of inclusion" joining together the image captured by the film/sensor and the image envisoned by the artist. Beautiful work.

A beautiful moment in time captured in perfect balance of action, setting and vision.

Excellent by every measure of that word. Dramatic, powerful, inspiring and captivating. It

couldn't be better!

I see a lot of manipulation of this same general kind on this site, and most of the time it is used to transform a bad picture into a different looking bad picture. In this case it has been used intelligently to transform a good picture into a memorable one. Let's face it, the shape of that net would be hypnotic no matter what was done to the image; the moment caught was perfect to convey action, yet with a sense of calm, in both net and fisherman; and the raft and bucket balance the net well. RP did good work behind the lens, not just behind the keyboard. You have to start with a decent image, almost always, to get a good manip like this one.

August: You have to start with a decent image BUT, you need to end up with the same. That's not here.

Damn this is nice shot. Simple with motion and some fantastic golden light and a little

bucket towards the foreground for interest. Nice...

As a recent member on Photo.net, I'm reading with great interest the comments on the POW, but rarely add my own comment since I consider myself not yet good enough yet as a photographer to forward my own observations. I'd like to make an exception this time; so please take my comment on what it is worth.

 

It is clear that photographic work can lead to very different reactions from the viewers side. This is good. This is also what makes photography so interesting : it is not only a very personal matter from the side of the photographer, but as a viewer we also read shots from very different angles, from very different point of views, with our own personal experience, and foremost with our own preferences on what we like or do not like. I think it won't be too hard to find people who dislike the work of the great classic photographers, just because their work doesn't "click", doesn't touch any internal strings on what it is considered to be beautiful or not.

 

My feelings toward the work of Rarindra Prakarsa is mixed. On the one hand, I admire the special mood he succeeds in putting into his shots, and especially the way he produces a very typical light ambiance. At the other hand, this is not the kind of work that I would like to hang on my wall since it doesn't touch an emotional string in me. It does not correspond to the kind of style that I have a preference for. No offense meant, my dear Rarindra, this is just personal, and I see with pleasure that other members here do like your work.

 

The discussion whether or not the shot has been subject to (heavy) post processing or not, is not relevant in my opinion. I have read enough about photography to understand that manipulation after the shooting has always taken place. What counts is the final output, the message that the photographer wanted to convey, and it is only on that output that he/she is to be accounted for.

 

erwin

Perfect lighting! This is an awesome capture, and the early morning (?) natural light gives this picture the "oomph" that it truly deserves. Congratulations.

 

ananth

The extreme pictorialist nature of this and the rest of the images in the folio risk moving into kitsch territory. The painterly style renders the subjects with a depersonalised expression and creates generic figures. The most satisfying images in the folio are those which are explicitly surreal. The others are so stylised that they are rendered as caricatures.