In the morning of a foggy - duck flied...

the black bird are fake...im sure of it...thats why there is not detail..

Real photo though it is valid in Photoshop it is used 1. Brightness contrast. 2. Small Bloor. Â it also consist art of the PHOTOGRAPHER, instead of the ARTIST - to prepare crude meat so that it was and it is attractive and is tasty. Such meets...............I am sorry for my English language, I write all with the translator - dictionary.

Tony,

 

I think what initially made me suspicious about this photo is not a general assumption that good photography can no longer be created without the use of photoshop, but the same details that Christopher Thompson noticed, namely the shape and flight pattern of the birds.

 

Most certainly ducks have a different shape. I am no ornithologist, but I believe that they have a different flight pattern too. I believe when they are flying in a flock they will all have their wings in about the same position at any given time. Assuming that these birds are ducks, Christoher gave a plausible explanation how such an 'unnatural flight pattern' could have been created by somebody with better photoshop skills than knowledge of ornithology.

 

Of course I did not analyse all these aspects whan I first looked at the picture, but having read the title made my brain expect ducks, and the picture just looked unnatural to me.

 

However, once you realise that the birds are actually cormorans - more commonly known as shaggs to Australian readers ;-) - this whole issue resolves itself, as do the concerns that some people raised about the size relationships between the trees and the birds. Cormorans are a lot bigger than ducks!

In Portfolio the initial picture is added.

Thia is a wonderful photo although interestingly quite different to the rest of Yuri's (excellent) work which, as Tony Dummett noted, relies on highly saturated color. I'm sure it's genuine, but even if it wasn't, quite honestly who gives a toss? The end result is beautiful.

First off, I think the accusations of photoshopping are fair, although I find it strange that the argument should become so heated. What does it matter if it is a photoshopped image or one caught on film? As far as I'm concerned, what is said is whats important, not the tools that are used to arrive at it. Discussion of technique are fine, but they should not alter our views on the content of the image.

 

I'd really like to see a print of this image. I'm often frustrated by what is lost scanning and uploading.

 

Finally, I personally don't find the image all that appealing. The photographer did an excellent job of capturing the trees and the birds but I don't think they form an interesting relationship. Where are the birds headed? (Apparently straight through the frame, towards a warmer and more colorful location.) I don't care for the flatness or lack of color. I don't think it adds mood, it just feels like a lack of information.

 

Was the shot taken at the longer end of the lens? I've never seen a day this foggy, but it makes sense if the trees are at a distance.

 

I also suspected photoshopping, because a) the birds were so much darker than the rest of the scene; b) the depth cues seem quite mixed up, since the darkness would have them much closer to the camera than the trees, but that isn't suggested by the DoF. That could be due to the fog confusing everything;

c) there are weird bow-waves around the birds, presumably from the heavy j-pegging.

 

So I was concerned not so much that PS had been used, but that it had been used badly. Since I don't doubt Yuri's word, I guess it's a case of truth being stranger to look at than fiction (like DB's horse under a rainbow shot :-)

 

As for the image itself: I do find the darkness of the birds sits a bit heavily in a composition of delicate greys. For me, the photo "Morning" in the same folder is a more successful version of a similar theme. But that might be because I'm almost never up at such an hour to see what cormorants flying in fog look like... :-)

 

Cheers & congrats, Graham

Like many others I find the darkness of the birds relative to the trees combined with the proportions of the flying birds and those on the trees disconcerting. Once noticed, the implication this has for the relative distance of the two parts of the picture "jars" in the mind a bit.

 

Further down the folder there's an almost identical scene taken within moments of the POW(some of the birds on the left hand tree are in the same position) but in colour. So, yes I find it likely the POW has been fairly heavily PS'd.

 

Having said that, I still think it is a great shot. In fact, the whole of Yuri's folder is superb. He has a whole folder of photos here that I wish I had taken even a few of myself, and that's after 20 years of trying (and 2 years of experimenting with PS!)

Like this picture very much, but could somebody

explain to me why there is an inhomogene image

surounding the birds !? Could this come from scanning ? If something has been added later inside to the image, this should be mentioned ! But however, perfect composition and a good idea !!!

Yuri sent me some "raw scans" of his negative strips. As I was writing my comment, I almost knew I would regret it.

 

The POW is PS'd but only in brightness and most specifically contrast (hence the artifacts that have been commented on). Most important to my perception of the scene, I can now see that the background IS NOT actually a misty sky - it is the side of distant hills in a very slight mist. There is only really a low mist on the ground around the trees with a fairly clear sky. So, the whole scene is not as foggy and dark as you might assume looking at the one picture we have here. Therefore it is reasonable to have the darker birds we see here.

 

Well done Yuri.

Hehe, this goes under "Fine Arts" :) Really well executed with a nearly monochrome touch. Amazing how many details this film captures without too much grain! You have captured a nice moment which many of us would have missed. Good work!

NIce shot. I would like to see it with a little more snap. A little extra contrast would be nice. This must look great in a real B&W print! I would like to see this Selenium Toned on nice fiber based paper!

 

Again nice shot!

Yuri,

 

I involuntarily shuddered when I first saw this shot. I can feel the cold, feel the stillness.

 

Few photos ever evoke a physical reaction the way this one did.

 

It's well deserving of POW.

First off,

 

I have to say that this is a good POW pic for the elves and really a great select from Yuri's portfolio. Everything works here, the level of fog and the "Flying South for the winter" look of the fowl in flight.

 

I have to laugh at comments like "More contrast" I mean really....I would love a bit more contrast too when I am driving in the stuff and can't see!!

 

As for the accusations of "Fowl" play using Photoshop.....this is excatly what I was refering to in an earlier rant on a notorious doctoring and fib a few POW's back.

 

The comments like "Who cares if he used photoshop?" those really bother me. That is the erosion of our craft of capturing a real moment going to the birds (No pun intended) Who cares? The National Press Photoraphy association for one. I know of stories of folks getting fired for claiming awards and using P/S in an unethical way.

 

Yuri, I tend to believe you on this one but be careful my friend, for this tough critic, you have to show consistently in your portfolio that you don't rely on heavy photoshop use. I am afraid that by even placing an image like the following that has selected had tinting, your credibility is on the line:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=730644

 

No problemo on the digitally enhanced photo regime. But if you are posting images and giving no classification as to it's final outcome, look out....I'm gonna Swoop!!

 

Keep it real folks and the fear of un-reality will not haunt you.

 

Nice image Yuri! Well deserving of it's distinction.

I can understand where Daniel is coming from. Obviously for the National Press Council, "truth" has some currency. Since Daniel is a press photographer, his primary responsibility is to "report" what he sees and his credibility is on the line... just as we expect journalists not to simply "make up" stories.

 

However, not all photography is photojournalism. Some strives simply to be Art (whatever the hell that is). Just as the standards of journalism are not imposed on novelists, the standards of PJ need not, should not, fall on all photogrphers.

 

Normally this is not a problem: if I see a photo in a newspaper/newsmagazine I assume the standards of PJ have been applied. If I see a photo in a gallery (without a sign saying "photos of X in Y doing Z"), then I admire them as images created *somehow* by the photographer. How exactly is up to him/her... and I don't see that distinctions need be made between posed models, gels, clever lighting and digital. Or paint...

 

Which is not to say news photographers can't exhibit in galleries or that journalists can't write novels, so long as everybody is honest about what they are doing. And if someone gets caught making it up when they say they didn't, well they deserve to go down in flames.

 

The problem on PhotoNet is that the context disappears. It's not a photojournlism site, nor an "art photography" site. Which opens the door to a lot of confusion, torn hair, angry words and tears before AEST bed-time.

 

To me, the answer seems simple. We all agree to say when we have fiddled so as to substantially change an image from what really existed. In some cases it won't be necessary (Marc Gougenheim's Jurassic Neighbourhood really didn't need a warning...), but it's a small effort to maintain site-wide peace, love & harmony (yeah, well we can dream :-)

.....Graham.

 

I do like some of the creations on this site very much, talent comes in all forms!

 

A little common courtesy is all I ask when a piece is put in front of me. If you look at almost any of my uploads, they have a minimum of good technical and real world backround to them.

 

That minimum seems to be the maximum that most put on thier images on this site leaving the viewer but with a minimal learning base.

I am always more impressed by an extrodinary photograph than a computer enhanced creation from an original.

 

I like to share my experience. I also think that it is common courtesy to tell folks when you have put on the micky mouse ears on a picture before serving it up to us.

 

The lack of any written guidlines on this site is the reason I have stopped rating. Rate it as what? A photograph or a mixed media illustration?

 

Is art truth.....or is truth art?

"Baaaack, Buck, Buck!" ( Chicken or the egg thing )

 

Now Yuri...don't think I am implicating you into this thread, your status remains quo.

Again a good photograph with a very stimulating dose of moment!

 

I love this site, always great to keystroke with you all.

 

db

Who is Marc Gogunheim, and what is Jurassic Neighborhood? I have never come across him before. Did he do fog pictures?. Curious.

Very nice. Is it one duck multiple exposure?

That would explain underexposed duck and fine

background. Also would allow 4 times faster

shutter to stop action.

I want to try something like that.

I have to agree with Daniel & Graham (again) - more technical info please.

 

I agree with everyone who thinks the birds (they are not ducks) are too black; they look super-imposed, even though they are not.

 

The PS accusations may have something to do with this photograph's general appearance. It doesn't look like a photo to me, even though its genuine. It has a very painterly look, which may be due to all the artefacts (look at the trees) rather than the neg.

 

Any chance of a better scan?

Yuri, I really love this photo. And I think your portfolio is great. I'm really new to photography and pictures like yours are what made me get into this. Do you have the technical info on this photo? I was just wondering how you got as much detail as you did and how the flying birds are so dark. Is it that they were just closer? Having the info on your pictures would be a great help for the next time I get into a foggy situation.

I have to agree with the discussions on Photoshop (not your pictures, Yuri). But letting the viewer know if a picture is Photoshopped would be helpful, especially to beginners who are looking and saying "Can I really take a picute like that?"

 

Once again, Yuri, your picture is GREAT to look at!

I like the contrast, -- it could work equally well with more shadow detail but it wouldn't carry the same message -- the composition, which is flat but not dull, and the textures in the bushes. The photographer may have blurred the other sitting birds in PS, but then again, this is "darkroom technique" and not exactly digital manipulation. I have to say that I like the original picture better, though. Just a little tilting and some dodging in the bottom part and we're there.

 

I think that Yuri extracted all the message the scene could convey, and I congratulate him for that. The downside is that message is not particularly interesting (personally.) As usual, the elves should pick an otherwise indifferent picture from a *very impressive indeed* portfolio (stress in the "very impressive indeed" in Yuri's case) to stir discussion.

The birds (I believe they are geese) appear just a little too dark in relation to the rest of the scene (contrast the Geese to the ravens in the tree) I think that is what is making people think there may be some digital mastery here. It may well be that the geese were closer to the camera, and thus not as effected by the fog as the birds in the tree, and the trees themselves.

Overall, I think it is an excellent image. However, compositionally, IMO, the birds are slightly too high in the frame (or the top is cropped slightly too low) They seem cramped by the top, and a placement more in line with golden rule proportions I think would work better.

Also, I think the ravens in the tree are unfortunate. The composition would be cleaner without them, but you can't control everything.

Congratulations Yuri, you have a great folder. I rated some of your pictures a couple weeks ago, and while this is not my favorite (Old Age is), it was executed well. I'm constantly amazed at the quality of work that can be found on this site. I just think too many people get hung up on the photoshop debate. If you don't care for digitally enhanced images, than don't rate or comment on them. There are plenty of "pure" photos as well on Photonet. I have some photos that I wouldn't dream of modifying, but I do enjoy creating images out of some of my other photos. Both types have their place here.

reminds me of home on a foggy, early spring, day. No Photoshop! Outstanding - very nice - I like it! The flying foursome remind me of Cormorants or Bitterns on migration.

As Paschal points out, there are considerable differences between the original version and the one we have here that was selected as POW.

 

Compare them side by side and you'll see that this version has been heavily blurred in some areas. This has removed the grain, increased the intensity of the blacks and where there was pleasing sharpness in the naked branches before, now all the muddying of the pixels makes this look like heavily Photoshopped.

 

It obviously has been altered -- and a little too much in my opinion-- so Yuri's insistence that he only used PS to correct brightness etc doesn't tell the whole story.

 

It's a shame because the original shot is IMHO so much better (and this is what is most worrying about the elves' selections every week: often, they choose the wrong one); it's a very atmospheric shot and the only thing that detracts slightly for me personally is the positioning of the geese (?) so close to the top of the frame and the fact that they are a little dark. But in the un-altered version, there is at least grain in the birds at the top suggesting that the original was a genuine photograph.