Village. Area "Langhe" - Italy

I really like you shot in terms of composition. The editing you've done has made the shot look very pre-revolution in terms of art. Very tapped in and pleasing. I like your signature in the bottom corner to, it adds greatly to the 'painting' mood. All in all I really like it and I'm sure it would look great printed on an A2 size canvas and hung in a grand old library. For me it's a creation of old, I'm not sure if that's what you were going for, none the less I like it, the viewer can get lost in it as there are so many elements to the shot.

Bringing three very distinct talents together into a single style is very impressive. Not being from Italy I do come close coming from Amador County (wine country in California). This particular piece is one that I would not be surprised to see hanging in the dining room of an older mansion. Taking excellent composition photos, applying filters from photoshop, and than adding your own style of antique ambience creates a series of photo-paintings that is pleasing to the eye and nostalgic at the same time.

 

I, for one, am now looking at photoshop with a renewed interest that goes beyond pressing the Auto Level button or cropping out the stray fingertip in the corner.

Congradulations, I'm glad I was not the only one who recognizes your amaizing talent...Painter like quailty, and perfect cmpositions.. I love the vineyards in the foreground leading your eye up to the village on the hill... Great job, again.. Cole

The Post-Processing does not work for me. The image as posted is minute is size (I believe that the framing actually has more area, and lacking in any detail. My preference is for photographs that look like photographs and in which some technical skills were applied. I suppose its perfectly allright for any party to NOT follow this path, and instead use a photograph as the basis for post-processing to achieve something else. But I find this image's use of post processing something that I have seen quite often before, so the spark of originality that might cause me to like it after all is just not there.

Vittorio, your work is beautiful. The type of camera, lens, F-stop, aperture, shutter speed and ISO are all ineffectual to the real world consumer. If your photograph has no aesthetic quality and does not look good on a wall what good is correct F-stop? This image has something very important...it looks good enough to buy! Well done Vittorio!

Perchance it is because I come to photography from an artistic background, from dealing with oils and watercolors, that I find this image intriguing. I do like the composition. It is a bit quirky. I love the bicycle in the lower left hand corner. The colors and hues are warm and comfortable. I feel texture throughout the image. The overall sense of the photo is delightful It is a place in my mind I would like to be. Andrew Wyeth had his nay Sayers, because his artwork was too much like a photograph, yet his works are some of the finest ever painted. You have chosen to take your photography into a different realm. Bravo.

Vittorio, When I look a a picture I try to see what is there for me, not whether it measures up to some notions of of perfection I have accumulated. By highlighting this photograph, the elves have caused me to look more slowly at a picture that I normally would have glanced at but for a moment. (I tend to like the flashy stuff.)And as the colors and composition began to seep in, I realized that there is more going on there than a spurious glance would yield. The village looks frightened, huddled onto itself in a landscape that is a once barren (vineyards), mysterious, (the loss of detail behind it) melancholic, (the huge dying sky sinking toward the darkness of night)and the contrasting patch of sustaining green left of the village snuggled tight against it. The colors are fading autumnal, that last fling before barren winter. Because of that it evokes a strong emotion in me. I like the photograph, because it speaks to me with several voices. Like friendships, the ones that take longer to develop are in the end, more satisfying. Regards, Bernie (Now I can look at the rest of your work:)

We've seen the likes of Clayton's post before, but I'm curious as to what he likes or dislikes about the post-processing? There is something unique about photography in that it is not ALL post-processing (as, for example, painting is entirely the work of the artist, not the work of a mechanical recording device), and where an image is heavily post-processed, I believe a different standard applies, leaving elements open to question that I might not question in a "captured" image. In this image, the choice of deemphasizing the entire top half of the photograph through processing seems highly questionable to me, and to weaken the naturally captured composition. With less post-processing, I'd find the resulting weakness to be a mild demerit, not a fatal flaw. Where this weakness results from a conscious decision by the photographer to process away what the device captured, it is a fatal flaw.

 

I normally would not stray quite this far from the image, but the moderator's endorsement of your post seems to embrace a discussion of whether post-processed images should be held to a higher standard as an appropriate topic for conversation, and I've at least tried to tie my thoughts on the subject to the image itself.

What do I like about this photo? The composition is simple but pleasing. Where the sky meets the horizion there is sufficient haze to add character and mystery, plus IMHO it draws the eye back to the main subject of the village. I enjoy the tones and colours as well.

 

What do I like about the post processing? Firstly it seems that detail has been removed with some sort of simplifier. Often times I like this effect because it leaves the viewer more intrigued and almost wanting more. I don't know what else has been done here, but it leaves me thinking that it is a dreamlike, ideal place that I'd like to see or visit.

 

I don't know half of what's been done here. The only thing that I see right off is that details have been removed. As an unmanipulated image I'm sure it would be pleasing but after what the photographer has choosen to do in post it certainly comes alive. I've never visited this corner of the world but I suspect that this image is rather iconic.

I like the image and the post processing. I have looked at your portfolio and, as written, I immediately noticed your preference to give your images a pictorial touch. To me, you do it in an excellent way. Here, everything works: the slightly hazed horizon, the composition leading the eye to the village almost cradled in the valley, the colors and tones chosen. The lack of details doesn't bother me at all; there are enough to " see" he village, but what is enhanced here, is the warm atmosphere.

For those who like the simplifying aspect of the post-processing, what do you make of the foreground, where a lot of detail has been retained, and if anything, emphasized?

 

One of the things I see as a compositional flaw - the relentless leading of the eye to a single point, holding it there - seems for others to be an advantage. For me, this leaves the image without any tension, and overly static.

Thanks again to averyone. I like that,after a fury day, finally I can read pertinent critiques :) About lines, that drive look to tangleded, geometric, platonic world, etc.. It's all right, path for look is a simple and useful tool to achieve the result to pass informations regarding meaning of imagine. But, personally, I would not limit my investigation following in a pedestrian way path of eyes. I'd ponder synthetically the moviment expressed by general lines without get lost in a maze of lines. In this image, ther are two subjects: village and vineyard. The principal is village, but I liked the graphic effect of poles that tell the story of that place and contribute with its texture to propose the village. In other words, vineyard is less meaningful respect to a village, but its position and details give it figural value (only figural). About problem with details: above all, there are a lot of details! If you see at this picture as a paint you can't see many details, but if you think that it is a coloured photo you can remark that my Oly e-400 made a good job (you can see wires in foreground!) A different matter regards background. As I said above, I have tried to reproduce in photos feeling of school of painters or individual painters. You can notice that, in paints and in photos, focus is a simple trick to emphasize important elements of image. So, I boosted the effect of focal lenfth softening background. I liked this result but I have to admit that it's opinable. I close my comment remind that this image, as the others, are photos enhanced in colours and softening, there is no "artistic filter" to achieve these effects, only learning tools and what you want to obtain. There isn't a fixed workflow, it's necessary to start with a very clean photo, improve image (removing dominat colours and alien objects, cropping and works on levels). And then, you can start colorizing, not everything but elements that need this treatment, having always in mind what perspective and distance cause on details and colours. Subject, of course, is very important (but I think about spaceship, after all Kubrick makes starship to dance with Strauss!!) If someone is interested, I can suggest some resource about artistic manipulation. Thank you again.

Vittorio, put me on your list of people who would like very much to see or hear about your list of resources for artistic manipulation. Once again, I thank you for opening my eyes to a Master's work.

 

In retrospect, I too was a bit bothered by the size of the image as displayed. I would have loved to see it bigger. Someone noticed the bicycle in the lower left corner of the image. I thought that was a signature of the artist, but now that it was called to my attention, I guess it is a bicycle.

 

Now in my old age, I find I can sit in front of a computer and work most of the day, but my time on my feet making photographs is quite limited.

 

Thanks again old friend,

 

Willie the Cropper

On the surface, a pleasing yet simple scene but the longer I look the more I am drawn in by the interaction of lines and curves and that wonderful light. The painterly effect adds a dramatic element to the overall image that I find quite warm and complimentary. Great job, wonderful work.

Some well meaning and poignant discussion flows from this fabulous pictorial originally

captured on a digital device. I think collectively we should forever banish the ugly term

"manipulated" in critiques regarding digital workflow for this suggests a negative as

though the photographer is deliberately deceiving his audience, pulling the wool over our

eyes. The opposite is evident, he has "enhanced' the digital negative(thanks Clayton for

making the point that as purists we may as well post RAW files and be done) to create a

direct emotional connection(well explained Michael Sewald) where technical massaging

becomes irrelevant and aesthetic similarity to painterly avenues achieves the artists goal.

Well accomplished Vittorio, and congrats for selection as POW. Regards...Tye Carnellli.

if the intent was to create a photographic image that looks live a varnished landscape or an oil paining that needs a good cleaning, then it is a considerable achievement, but unless my monitor is way out of calibration, the darkness of the image and near dullness of the colours seems to me to be an odd choice...

Thank you again for suggestion. A few references for friends who are interested in technique. I have learnt a lot about colours from Dan Margulis books, a real guru of colours in and out digital world. Katrin Eismann an expert of restoration and rotouching who write in a excellent and clean way. Plus a lot of books about photoshop that you can find in every bookstore but not so important (for me) to achieve this results (I am not satisfied of my pictures, I'd continue to change endless). I want to mention other two names: Ansel Adams and Andrea Feininger about theory (not to mention their stunning productions). About painters, a good exemple come from English landscapists from XVII to XIX century and other from different country, for exemple I like Friedrich from Germany, from Italy Canaletto or Francesco Guardi, etc. But this list has no a lot of sense, there are an andless list, becouse I am not interested to reproduce single artist paints (there are great contemporary artists that contunue it in a splendid way), raTHER i like feeling of that colours and I want to see if photography allows to obtain that feeling (above all about colurs). About details: really this picture is little thinking the heavy treatment that eat details. I wanted to insert picture inside a large white frame, reminding those little paints, but this way compresses the image. But this is a general issue when you publish a photo on line, I'll try to do better thinking that, nature of this technique, requests anyway to select and destroy details.

Bye.

I love this image, one of my favorite POWs ever. Why? I can let my eyes study and roam over the image, and it feels so pleasant. I am not much of an art critic, and a beginner in photography, so my explanations will not be so scientific. To me, an excellent image (photo, painting, whatever) is something that has just the right combination of uniformity and variety. Too uniform is boring, too much variety is distracting. With the town, the vineyard stakes in the foreground, the green vineyards (I think) to the left of the town, the fields and hills, the sky and clouds, this image to me has just the right mix; there are lots of interesting things to look at, but they all are enough alike that it fits together. And it has such a relaxing feel to it, that I could look at it for a long time, and see it every day. Composition I think is key, and the post-processing, whatever the techniques used, complement the composition in delivering that, as Michael mentioned, emotional connection. Well done!

I like the image itself. An adjustment of the composition could help strengthen the image. For instance, the tops of the buildings and hill sit statically 1/2 way between the top and bottom of the image. Crop the image to show either more of the forground field or crop to show more sky. Adding foreground will emphasize the buildings. Adding sky will emphasize the mood. I agree with the comment to please add a larger image to your portfolio. This image appears to be distractingly pixelated. The style itself is worth developing.

Nope, doesn't do it for me. Why should a photographer feel the need to pretend that he (or she) is a painter? Or vice versa? Vittorio, you are an extremely talented photog; your image "Misty" is one of my all-time favorites. But images like "Langhe", where your mastery of PSCS2 is evident, is neither photograph, nor painting, but a Master Class in CGI. Yes, the original image was shot with a camera; but since the final result is manipulated to look like a painting, where do we go from here. In the last several years the line between photographs and painting has blurred to the point where a third category, (Manipulated Image? maybe), should be created. As a painter for 30 years, and a photograher for less than that, I respect, and appreciate the separate strengths and unique differences between the mediums. Blurring the lines can create something neither fish nor fowl; as an old design instructor once said: "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should."

Glenwood

Glenwood, thank you for your interesting reflections. If you read my previous comment, I sayd this is not a painting, so I don't pretend to be a painter. The goal of this manipulation is NOT to emulate painting, (for this one there are artistic filters) but to create inside a photo feeling of some kind of picture painted. You are right when you say this kind of images (I don't speak about mine, I am negligible) belong to a new category of visual arts, but they are closer to photography becouse they nourish of photos. Your argument would be correct if you refer to the technique to paint and then retouch paint (it exists, of course), instead this is a photo retouched.

Bye.

PS.: Congratulation for your beautiful portfolio, I like particularly photos of Venice with their old style feeling ;-))

Michael, I have to disagree with the cropping suggestions. Most of the time I too strive for a 1/3, 2/3rd ratio, but I tried cropping some from both the top and the bottom to achieve it here days ago, when I first critiqued it. Try it yourself. Hold your hand and crop most of the sky, what happens? It gets a bit boring as the top of the clouds are dramatic, and the part below them are plain, so you'd lose that to gain 'proper' cropping? A no-go for me.

 

So now, let's try the bottom instead as that did not work. Ouch, the cropping takes out that really strong side-lit area in the vineyard, one of the other strengths of the image. So another no-go too. So you see, we could not change it or we lose too much strength either way, and so it's better to have an 'imperfect' composition over a 'boring' one anytime, as that is what you would get. But nice try.

I'm a beginner in photgraphy, so my critique is from a very amature point of view. I like the look you gave the photo, like a painting, it's very nice, but I think it loses something, the thing I love most about photography, when I see a photo of a beautiful place I love to think that I can visit it or see what you saw, but paintings are more from imagination and love to manipulate reality, photos as well but the place no longer seems real to me and I love the sense of reality photos create. The town has a scared look to it, I also think the town would look better if moved over to the right a bit. Don't get me wrong, I truly admire your work.

Michael: it is very interesting your report of esperiments (perhaps a little academic). I tried a lot of solutions, cropping different sides to "move" elements inside picture but, as you noticed, this way had sacrificed importat elements and compromised general equilibrium of picture. I think this fact is synthesized in a well known rule: it is a good idea not to centre subjects, but there are cases where center can works. Metthew: I agree with you, I also like very much not manipulated photos, if you look at my most rated photos you find a little manipulated photos. Simply I have found these kind of techniques very interesting and fair results. If you wish to compare with an original there is a little exemple http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5582582.

Bye

This is a well balanced and well toned image.