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

Yuri's image is good enough to put on a wall. Maybe not a gallery wall, but certainly on the photographer's wall. His use of composition, contrast and blurring are to be commended. Everything he did to this image could be easily done by an average printer.

 

Tools are tools. This Misha Gordin image (www.bsimple.com) used a 4x5 view camera, Tri-X film, and one enlarger. Period. It, and others like it, are hanging in museums all over the world. Yet were it to be chosen POW how many would negate it because it has obviously been "photoshopped"? In truth, fine art photographers at the highest level have been using highly technical skills to enhance their images, and yes, delude the viewer into thinking he is seeing something he is not. Before that there were the painters. To use Photoshop successfully takes years of hard work. Now, the photographer must not only be good in the field, good in the darkroom, but also good in image manipulation. So who is the better photographer? The one who gets a lucky grab shot? The one who re-shoots a scene for weeks to get it right? The one who has mastered Photoshop? I have spent a lifetime in the darkroom - like almost daily for 40 years - striving for innovative printing techniques as well as mastering the tried and true. So now I use Photoshop. It is much faster, much cheaper, but not easier. And people, like Carmela, call my pictures fakes because of this. I think "A World History of Photography" by Naomi Rosenblum (Abbeville Press) or perhaps "Photography, History of an Art" by Jean-Luc Daval (Skira/Rizzoli Publishing) should be required reading to anyone who wishes to call himself a serious photographer. There is much to learn from those who have gone before - and from those who are making fresh discoveries every day. Perhaps we could call the dichotomy replicators vs. creators?

I don't usually participate in these critique sessions but I think the issues that have been brought up go beyond Yuri's image.

 

As I have made clear in other postings, I don't have much respect for Photoshop and the people who use it to fabricate images that they did not have the talent to capture with a camera. That is my personal feeling. Somebody might say.."What does it matter?" and I would respond that the undeclared fakery by Photoshop users has led people to be suspicious of every exceptional photograph and to, directly or indirectly, accuse the photographer of faking the shot.

 

It is not a matter of "art" or "I can make my own rules!!" or "The end justifies the means!" but it is a matter of falsely claiming talents and abilities that one does not possess and thereby lessens our appreciation of those whose mastery of the camera enables them to capture (in a fraction of a second) images that move us.

 

Perhaps Yuri was lucky to capture this shot but...he WAS there; standing outside; in the fog, when he pushed the shutter and not sitting in a warm office playing with his computer; manipulating an image in order to manipulate us!

 

I respect his shot much more than all the photoshop tricks in the book!

Yuri, this is a wonderful image from a fantastic portfolio. You are a gifted photographer. Thanks for sharing your work with us. It would be nice to get some of the technical details of your work but I understand your language challenges.

 

As for the ongoing complaints about PhotoShop... when will it stop? Those who dislike PhotoShop so much should create a 1-HourPhoto.Net where all images must be processed by your local 1-Hour Photo Lab and submitted as the 4x6 original.

Rather than a One Hour Photo Lab, how about just a seperate category for PS'ed images?

 

This photograph is fantastic in both forms, the raw unedited version that I prefer, and the PS'ed image that Yuri chose to display. Either way, this is a great image IMHO.

Yuri, you have created quite a stir with your photograph. You have captured a rare moment in time and caused people to think and debate. I am glad that you have showed us both the original and the edited version. These two pictures have been successful in generating much discussion. The unedited one shows an average looking photo, that one might perhaps store away, but not post on photo.net. You deserve to be commended for possessing the insight and wisdom to recognize that this almost-great photo had something worth working with. The final version clearly takes the dull and brings it to life. The contrast adjustment you have made is far more appealing in the POW version; it has a more professional look to it. And whether you bumped up the contrast in the darkroom or in photoshop, results the same.

I have a very, very old how-to-book on printing techniques, entitled, "Darkroom Magic". It use to be that when you manipulate your images using darkroom techniques, you are an outcast, because your photograph isn't "original" anymore, it has been through some "darkroom magic". It is not pure anymore. Now, after 100 years, this kind of "magic" is, more or less, accepted. But, computer techniques, hey! that's cheating! That's magic!!!

When professional photographers use fill-in strobes, umbrellas, soft boxes, filters, etc. to shoot their models or products... isn't this also cheating? Shouldn't they just rely on available light? Some people are just still living in the era of the camera obscura. By the way, did you know that the first users of the camera obscura were considered "cheaters". And that many of these artists are now considered masters, and their works classics.

Godi, do paintings hang in photography galleries?

 

Do 'real' photographs win prizes in computer graphics competitions?

 

Why are the negatives/slides required as proof in photography competitions?

 

May I offer a wild guess? It's all because they are created by different methods, requiring different skills and levels of skills.

 

If the method doesn't matter, why don't we call this www.art.net - and maybe I'll start submitting poems..?

 

This image clearly qualifies as a photograph, and Yuri is clearly very talented indeed. But in my opinion it is *very* reasonable to question how an image is created, and remarks like the above seem to be missing the point completely.

 

mt

Using PS isn't 'cheating' or 'magic' or 'wrong'; it's just that people like to know when its been used (just as people like to know when filters, softlights, dogding/burning etc. have been used).

 

It's not so much a 'should PS be used or not' (I prefer the original) debate, but a 'has PS been used or not' debate that hijacks POW from time to time. The latter is irrelevant once the truth is known (all those mind-numbingly obvious posts in the 'hands' POW), and the former is a non-starter (PS is a legitimate tool).

 

Personally, I'd love these the two images side by side and have a decent 'did the use of PS improve this image or not debate' instead. Unfortunately, these often get hijacked by the 'if the use of PS doesn't improve an image, it proves that PS is the spawn of Satan' brigade (Meryl).

 

I don't want to criticize Yuri at all for this, given his poor english. It's not his fault; he is probably more proficient in english than I am in his native tongue, even though he is using a Babelfish...

Absolutely stunning!

Beautifully balanced with an another worldly feeling.

BEAUTIFULL!

Ducks do not sit in trees! Great effect in the presentation, but truly unnatural.

The birds in the trees appear to be another type of bird, perhaps crows.

 

The flying birds are cormorants, not ducks, and they do sit in trees. Their feathers are not waterproof like a duck's (even though they dive underwater) and they can often be seen with their wings spread, sitting in a tree, dock or piling, drying their wings.

Congratulations on your POW.

I just looked at this for the first time on my home machine, which has a calibrated 19" CRT. Preiously I was using my work laptop, with a 13" LCD.... the blackness of the cormorants is less objectionable to me now... I must learn not to judge tone from an LCD. I must learn not to judge tone from an LCD. I must learn...

maybe its my monitor, but the fog seems dull to me, and to weak compared to the ducks. but the picture is great anyway, maybe a bit of a cliche? but then agian its hard to o something "new" everytime...

Nice work, but the composition is a little static to me.

Great photo, Top Marks. I think the composition is very ALIVE. Great mode too. I like it very much !

I like the moodiness of the fog, but I think the contrast adjustments are a bit overdone. The birds seem too dark compared to the trees, making the image seem unrealistic.

Right time, right place, right exposure..love it!

The picture called 111111.jpg by Peter Voerman is too overdone to the point where the foggy misty look is gone. I prefer the way Yuri has done it. The contrast was adjusted perfectly, not too much, not too little.

Yuri, this is gorgeous! Though I realize from your comments that it is not PS'd, It wouldn't change my love of it one bit. I generally find those who poo-poo at PS'ing generally aren't very good at it so they prefer to act as though it's not a good thing.

For what it's worth, the original image posted by Eugene is in my opinion vastly superior to the version that was granted the POW title.

 

The original is everything the winning photo should have been. First off, the longer vertical dimensions results in a much stronger composition, where the birds, the trees and the ground properly frame the photograph. The lower contrast hides many unwanted details (like the birds in the trees and the branch on the ground), and brings out more detail in the birds. The overall subtle tone is also more pleasant.

 

I never really cared for this week's POW, but I really do like the original. Yuri, maybe you got seduced by the power of Photoshop?

 

Being from an earlier generation when I first saw this shot I didn't think Photoshop I thought Sandwich shot meaning two slides had been placed back to back in a slide holder and shot as one or that it was simply a double exposure in the dark room or on the film itself. But I will take the photographer on his word. It looks to like a remarkably good shot that proves that a good eye, some talent and a bit of luck may result in a lovely piece of art.