OVERFLIGHT

well caught !

I like the perspective - the tiny man below and the huge bird.

cheers Jana

Wow, i first didn´t the see the gull, i only noticed the colors brown, green and white.

At this was wunderful, but the gull makes ist a big wow.

How have you done that?

Where did you stand?

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

First question: Was that bird shopped in?

Second question: Where on earth were you standing, Armindo, to get this angle from so high above?

--Lannie

@ Lannie
Photographer states: Two pics together. The seagull was added in layers.
Strengths: Beautiful composition with nice coloring and the sign of the messenger/hope is finally in reach for the lone human figure.
Weakness: IMHO it looks fake...

Conceptually, the image seems a bit commercial on one hand and maybe macabre on the other--like the person is just a tasty morsel.

I think the disparity between the contrast of the two elements just doesn't integrate well here from a technical standpoint. Also, the placement of the bird and the intersections of similar tones in the background--without any sense of atmosphere to separate them--makes things seem a bit busy and confused by the bird's placement where it is.

Anyway, I like to see people trying things and although I didn't look extensively at the portfolio, maybe this was a valuable exercise in that sense.

I agree that this looks fake. I would not mind that if I could find an once of originality in this image. What I do see is a visual cliche. This sort of thing has been done better countless times. I also find the colors are off. They are not earth colors. They are just soiled colors.

This is truly the worst POW I've seen in a long time. The artist had to do this at least once, I guess. Mr. Lopes can now put it behind him and do something else that (let's hope) will be better.

Rarely one see seagull as alone for being mostly live in the form of large aggregates.

If one is going to photograph seagulls, it is better to do it from above. The alternative places your lenses at risk.

I like the aesthetics of this collage, and because I don't often see images with this perspective, I don't think I can call it a cliche.

What bothers me, and what has bothered me for years, are comments like "perfect capture," "perfecta luz" (I'll include on the limited Spanish I can understand), "an excellent shot," "Absolutely everything came together perfectly for this photo," "I wonder where you were while taking this shot," "7/7 for the cropping and the moment," "Amazing shoot!!!" " How have you done that? Where did you stand?"

It was not a capture, it was not a shot, it was not a moment, and these viewers were evidently fooled into thinking so. I just can't equate a collage with a photograph, regardless of how much I may like the aesthetics or the imagination or the technical expertise of the the resulting digital combination. Two polar opposite processes are involved, and two completely different experiences have taken place. While they both start with a camera, one is complete with only a camera while the other is not; the other relies on additional hardware and software. One actually existed for a brief moment, while the other has never existed. One was seen, while the other was not. I consider those to be very fundamental attributes, and they are sufficient to separate photography from digital art.

All I ask is that the originator just call it for what it is, so that I can can appreciate it for what it is. I'll admit I differ from those who believe process is not important and it's only the results that count. I disagree with that point of view.

This issue is a dead horse that has been beaten for a long time by those who have been with PN for years. I reluctantly raise these issues for newcomers, and I sincerely hope the discussion doesn't get sidetracked or sink to becoming a shouting match between those with different views regarding product versus process.

I should mention that not everyone saw this as a single photograph. Comments like "Effective PS composition work," and "realidad o fantasia?" at least raised the question. Also, this was posted in 2007, and much has changed regarding how collages are presented and perceived.

BTW, I'm basing these comments on the entry made by Panayotis who stated Armindo told how it was made; I did not see that statement from Armindo; perhaps it's in the details section.

Finally, I agree with John A in that I like the act of trying new things, of trying new ways to use our cameras and computers to produce images that were difficult or impossible in the past. However, I still have an appreciation for the "traditional" single-exposure photograph that I don't want to be lost amid these changes.

Stephen, when I came back to make my comment, this image was in the box to the right showing other work by Armindo--which is the background image here.

Trying to find it now, I also found this version, with the same background.

Just an FYI.

Now that we know that this is a composite and relation between this image and reality is broken, where do we go now?

In this case, it's immaterial to me that the seagull is added in with a layer. Totally irrelevant to me. This is well done...curves within curves within curves. It makes me wish all those curves weren't enclosed in a rectangle. I love the overall composition, though.

We all dream of flying. Or at least I do, and I suspect all of you do as well, even if you don't admit it. This could be an image from one of my own dreams. I'm perfectly content to sit here and look at it...and dream.

Yeah, I like it.

Even though it is very relevant to me that the image is a composite, I think we should evaluate it in terms of how this image strikes us, the story it may tell to us, perhaps our view of the technical expertise in creating the image, how the image makes us feels, what we might have done differently (based on our own preferences) had we created this image, etc. etc. (i.e., in a manner quite similar to how we look at and evaluate single-exposure photographs).

I too like the overall composition, especially the way the wings mesh with the angles of the waves below. I also like the extended breaks in the waves that create large areas of white amid the greenish waters. I'd love to be able to fly to have this perspective. In my youth, I did so in my dreams. I'm very envious of birds in this regard. They have a perspective on the world that is simply outside our experiences except for brief moments of skydiving, flying in small planes, or accidentally slipping off a cliff (yes, that last one is intended to be a joke). As a digital composite, I like the results.

Stephen, I think you expressed the issue with digital composition beautifully in your first post. I suppose if one is making a significant piece of art then digital combinations are fine. But this does not strike me in any way as an artistic image. Perhaps there was some artistic intent but it does not come through for me here. JJ

Most of what I like about this picture was contained in the original (first linked to by John A above):

[link]

On this one, Armindo says,"Taken from the top of a hill."

Some composites work very well. This one does not look real to me. I do really like the original, though, which most persons might find a bit boring.

In addition (with apologies to Stephen), I often do like to know where shots are made from. I always like to know the larger context, even though I know that the relative sense of steepness in the angle of the photograph is going to depend on whether the lens was used at the wide end or the telephoto end. (Wide angles tend to flatten things out, whether one is looking down or looking up. Telephoto exaggerates the vertical scale--and so I am wondering at what focal length this might have been shot. If shot at the long end with a 1.5x crop sensor camera, then the resulting apparent 300mm focal length would definitely increase the sense of vertical exaggeration. I presume that that was what was done here, although I cannot say for sure without knowing the area. Some hills are steeper than others, after all.)

Armindo, you do incredible work, and, though I like many of your photos better, this is still a solid photo. Congratulations on getting Photo of the Week.

--Lannie

This is a comp, not a photo. The f64 look and lighting give it away immediately.

Good joining of two shots together..... also like the composition with the aircraft added

Paul

I like this picture. The near/far relationships lends great depth to the image and the bird wings matching the shape of the waterline is just well seen.
I wish however it were well executed. It's not so much that the image is a photo illustration, it's just that it's so obviously so. The bird looks pasted on, plain and simple which really ruins the effect for me. There are ways to use Photoshop to create a more realistic rendering. Less perpective push, better light and focus matching and better selection and pasting.
I would suggest to Armindo to bone up on your composite skills and try this again. It's a really nifty idea!