grave

My guess is that a lot noise control was used in the postprocessing, which has rendered the tombstones almost textureless (whereas they would be more interesting to look at if they had more texture).

This is one of my many shortcomings: I'm simply unable to see what others can see regarding staging, processing, etc. in the making of a photograph, and I do trust they are correct in their assessments. To me, this is a spontaneous shot; perhaps I'm being extremely naive. If it was, in fact, staged, lit with a strobe, and perhaps even used a captive pigeon set free at the right moment, then I can understand someone seeing this as a rather shallow metaphor. I just don't know in my own mind, so the best I can do is suspend analysis and judgement and try to learn something from the comments of others. Some feedback from Ugur as to motivation and methods would be most welcomed (I don't enjoy making guesses about factual circumstances).

Stephen-I don't feel there is anything wrong with creating an interesting, natural-looking photo illustration. I know some have an issue with photographs being "real". I don't. You are correct, we don't "know" if it is or isn't but I don't think it matters.

Even, on the outside chance, this were a real scene, my comments on sappy sentiment and liking the image would be unchanged. The picture stands and fails on it's own merit regardless how it came into existence.

I would, however, add in my remarks that, if it was revealed to be a natural scene capture, I would be the first to congratulate the photographer on their incredible luck of stumbling onto this fortuitous arrangement of subject, dramatic lighting, unique location and animal motion all captured with, great presence of mind, in a well composed frame, one perfect exposure with impeccable timing. It could happen I suppose.

What is the probability that the pigeon might have been pasted in?

Just speculating, which I don't like to do, but I'd say pretty high..... just considering the difficulty of having one available and then being able to catch it at the perfect moment in less than ideal conditions (e.g., dark). Pigeons are not a nocturnal bird.

Stephen, I thought so too, and there are plenty of opportunities to isolate a single pigeon with that "pose" in a public space filled with pigeons. See the two photos with a little girl:
http://uurthegreat.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=312

Technically very good but not best framed.

I have spent a bit of time looking at this image and reading some of the comments, for me i dont find meaning in the image, this may be because of my own personal views on death. The pidgeon to me, apears not to be from the scene captured but included as an afterthought. (judging by its position and the way it looks poised to land). The side lighting for me adds drama to what i would say is a very ordinary scene. the colour in the daffodils give life to the image. I find the colours other than the daffodils a bit to "muddy" for my liking, perhaps the colour could have been subdued in in saturation. For me this would have given more dominance to the part of the scene that provides the most interest, the bird and the flowers. overall a clever image but not evoke much in terms of emotion or visual stimulus

Photo.net's premiere pasted pigeon picture for PoW.

The Holy Spirit would not be pleased with a pigeon stand-in for a dove.

I still like it.

--Lannie

This leaves me with the impression of headlights of a car that pulled into the graveyard at night. To me, the light is intrusive to the point of distraction and is the real show stopper, not the pigeon. The light results in the vivid colours and the shallowness of the shadows in this image. All in all, beautiful work.

Ugur, As an universal representation of death this image touches everyone deeply reminding our departure from here! For Christians the Bird represents the Holy Spirit connecting us to life after death. What a decisive moment if there is one you capture here. To me this is the desicive moment of all. The dove is saying you don't die, the spirit goes on, we all live for ever.....Congratulations! Warm regards from Miami.

I thought Fred G. made an interesting comment recently (last week?) regarding the idea of the "decisive moment." He felt the concept is perhaps being overused and may not be appropriate for some of the situations in which it is being cited (I'm going from memory here, and I hope I'm close to Fred's primary idea). I think that's the case here when "decisive moment" is being applied to the fact that the pigeon was caught at just the right moment (with the big assumption that is was, in fact, photographed and not photoshopped).

It seems to me that "decisive moment" comes from a relatively long, continuous, and changing series of moments as a potential subject moves through time. At some point in that sequence, light and composition come together in a manner that makes for the best photograph compared to all of the other moments in that sequence when the light and composition might not have been quite as good. That's a decisive moment.

In the case of Ugur's photograph and the many photographs like this, there really was not a relatively long, continuous, and changing series of moments out of which Ugur selected the best one when he pressed the shutter button. The sequence of the flying (or landing) pigeon lasted less than a second, and Ugur nailed it. Rather than a "decisive moment," it seems better to call this a "precise moment" (to be kind to the photographer) or a "lucky moment" (to be less kind but often more accurate). One might even want to talk about an "instant" rather than a "moment" to better describe the exceedingly fast rate of change of subjects like this. Humans can't see or respond to events that happen that quickly. It's why some cameras shoot at 10+ frames per second for several seconds, as opposed to "decisive moments" that are captured with a single click of the shutter. Birds move so fast and the light and composition change so quickly that it's impossible to pick the single best instant and get it with a single click of the shutter. The only option is to take a rapid series of instants from which the best one can be selected, or to get really lucky if a single click of the shutter is employed. But I don't think we should call this a "decisive moment" because there really was no moment of deciding (now? now? now? now?).

Stephen, take a look at the image and comments here:
http://uurthegreat.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=336#/dtzfh5

The camera data is on the right which states:

• Make:Canon
• Model:Canon EOS 30D
• Shutter Speed:1/250 second
• Aperture:F/4.5
• Focal Length:120 mm
• ISO Speed:100
• Date Taken:Mar 6, 2007, 4:28:14 PM

Then the comments by the author:

Presumably the shot was made in Ugur's native country - Republic of Turkey.

The apparent inconsistencies calls into question the authenticity of the image, which if photoshopped, will make this discussion rather moot.

[Sunrise and sunset in Istanbul, Turkey, on March 6th, 2007]

Michael, nice detective work. Yes, a photoshopped image would make the "decisive moment" discussion moot for this particular photograph. It might instead become the "decisive hour" during which the computer work was done.

My dissertation dealt with the effects of urban development on birds. I got to know pigeons pretty well. Where I live, pigeons would not be found in this kind of habitat (they might roost under eaves of the building in the background) nor flying at this time of night. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me, although I must allow for behavioral differences of pigeons in different parts of the world. I have seen house sparrows using artificial light around shopping centers to extend their day to look for food during the winter months, so when dealing with animals I seldom rule anything out. Still, pigeons here at this time of night would be most unusual.

Stephen, I didn't want to interfere with the discussion and hesitated to post the details but did sort of eluded to it in my initial comment.

There's really nothing wrong with a photoshopped image if indeed this was, and there should be no embarrassment to the author even if viewers were convinced otherwise; in fact it would speak to his software prowess. I just wish Ugur would clarify this for us.

We seem to do this too frequently: debate a factual but unknown aspect of a POW, when a simple reply or explanation from the photographer could put it to rest. Perhaps the bird was landing, and Ugur saw it from a sufficiently long distance away that he had time to get his eye to the camera, focus, and fire a shot.... and it was taken from a place in the world where it is dark at 4:30 p.m. on March 6, or he totally messed up on entering that data, or he was just joking about it being a spontaneous single-shot capture, or it was a pre-conceived photo shoot using a captive bird that was released on command just for this shot, or....

I'm not a huge fan of the picture, but why would you Photoshop in an image of a pigeon? I suppose if you wanted to mess around with adding a bird to the picture, and a pigeon is all you had, you might do it.

IMO, it is NEVER incumbent on a photographer to tell the story of his photo. If you are left wondering, that may be exactly what is desired. I recently did a photo that I think might cause people to wonder whether or not it was staged or something that just happened. That aspect of it, to me, is part of its mystique, and I certainly don't feel obliged to tell people whether I staged it or not. In most cases, this dwelling on process is a big distraction from seeing what's in front of us. Count me among those here who have said it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me whether I learned this pigeon was pasted in or not. It will continue to look the same to me no matter how it was done.

Many photographers and artists are purposely evasive when they are asked these kinds of questions. Many have a large stake in ambiguity.

We don't demand magicians tell us all their secrets at the end of their performance. We shouldn't demand anything similar from photographers. The fact that some of us choose to dwell on how "real" a photo is or to what extent it was manipulated is not the fault of the photographer nor does it fall to that photographer to buy into the importance of these types of discussions or put any minds at rest about it. Viewers need to take responsibility for what they are emphasizing when viewing and what they get hung up on.

On the other hand, Fred, p.net is primarily about learning and sharing; what purpose would it serve to pussy foot around such an important element in a photograph when it's so central to what makes it interesting enough to be selected as POW?

Have a look at Dan Heller's POW from 2003 and you'll know that I mean:
http://photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/006TXQ

Time-out wouldn't allow me to add Dan's reply from the above thread;
Specifically:

Dan Heller ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif, Nov 13, 2003; 05:06 p.m. - Artist's Rebuttle

Dan Heller ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif, Nov 14, 2003; 02:08 p.m. - Clarifications

If some parts of a POW don't make sense, I don't think it's at all surprising that some viewers would inquire about that. If the parts don't make sense and leave us wondering for a purpose, i.e. that's what the photographer desired, then the photographer can simply state that.

But what's in front of us is, in part, a process.... it's a product of a process. Why should photographers who must themselves employ various processes to produce their photographs not be interested or not have questions about the process behind a POW?

O.k., I know where you stand, Fred, and I can understand why it would continue to look the same to you regardless of the process. But to others, it may make a difference whether the pigeon was photoshopped into the photograph. We're all different to varying degrees and in varying ways.

As Michael stated, many of us consider the POW to be, in part, a learning process. I don't think we're "demanding" as much as "asking," and I ask in large part because I don't want to make false assumptions about technical aspects of a photograph that have definitive answers.

It seems to me that photographs have several aspects: the intention on the part of the photographer, the interpretation on the part of the viewer, and the technical aspects of how the photograph was produced (much of which is contained in the exif data). Some viewers may be concerned primarily with meaning and interpretation, others may be concerned primarily with technical aspects, and still other viewers may have varying degrees of interest in both. Why not let all of those represented interests get as much as they can from the POW (at least, I suppose, to the extent the photographer is willing to share his or her secrets)?

I tend to agree that we often get too hung up on how something was done rather than how it affects us. Yes, it is nice to know how something was done but then those that care often suggest that they will think less of a piece if they know it was created in photoshop than at the time of exposure, in camera. That doesn't give one much motivation for speaking, IMO! Personally, I like to know how people react to what I present, my vision, not worry about how I got there (my techniques in the field or in post) or where I shot it.

When I read the comment on the other site by Ugur (He does say this was make in London by the way), one would tend to think he is suggesting that he made this in camera without planning. On the other hand, the technical data posted here doesn't seem to make sense UNLESS this was actually shot during the day and it is the sun creating the bright light. There are hints this could be the case (how much fill light there is) but the color balance does feel more like night light (photoshop adjustments?) Does it matter? Not to me, the image is presented as Ugur wants it to be.

The issue I have with the Pigeon and I haven't seen it mentioned here anywhere, is that it doesn't symbolize life or the spirit in modern life--especially in cities and their residents (unless you are a small child or an old person who likes feeding them). For most of us, these things are a nuisance and "dirty" birds. My studio entrance in Portland was under a bridge, you had to be careful where you parked or you would have a guano encased car when it was time to go home. City officials are always trying to rid their squares of these bombers and keep their statues and fountains clean. Maybe if you live rurally, these are quaint birds, but for those who live in cities, the symbolism here is not pretty.

Like I said before, the light has been handled well but I should have qualified that with the fact that I don't know that it is as expressive as it might have been. Whether it was created, which seems at odds with the one linked comment we have by Ugur, or just not worked like it might have been in post, we don't know. But then, we also don't know what Ugur's intent was and he may have it just as HE wants it (which is what we should assume). In a way, the handling of the light is moot for me as I am just left cold by the bird. I think it is just too important to be overlooked or minimized or dismissed in the reading of the image.

At a certain point, you do have to come clean about how you made a picture, if it is to be judged on its merits. I don't mean the precise exposure details, but in general, is it an image that represents reality or one that represents what you created using your imagination? I really don't think that I've ever been to any substantial public showing of a photographer's work--either at a gallery or a museum--that didn't present a general idea of where the photographer was coming from. In fact, it's usually explained in the notes to the show. If a "created" image is spectacular enough, we applaud the artist's creative powers--and it doesn't detract from our appreciation of it to know it was manipulated in some way.

Now Photo Net is another ball of wax entirely. Anyone can put their photos, at any stage of development, of any quality, manipulated or not, on the web for all to see. (That's what makes Photo Net fun.) Then an elf, without asking, can pull one of them and present it as the Photo of the Week, and the photographer, who conceivably might not even agree with the elf's choice of their picture, feels he has to defend it to the death.

Now once people start to ooh and ah--in appreciation about how talented you are to have captured a certain moment with the click of your shutter--you are unlikely to want to reveal that you actually dropped the pigeon into the center of the picture in Photoshop (i.e., the decisive moment was when you were hovering over the background layer with layer 1 that you just managed to drop into the right place).

And I don't mean to rain on Ugur's parade. It's great to have your picture selected as the Photo of the Week. I was just using his picture to illustrate my point.

John, I agree with that and would prefer that less attention be focused on technique. It seems to me that part of the reason why so much space gets devoted to technique is we don't get that definitive reply from the photographer, so we keep looking for clues and citing evidence that might help answer a very simple factual question. I, too, thought that the data Ugur posted in the other forum did not seem like the settings that would be required for a photograph under these conditions.

Yeah, many of the commenters were pretty quick to see this as a photograph with symbolic meaning, yet we have no idea if that's what Ugur saw or intended. This may be, for him, nothing more than an opportunistic photo of a bird that just happened to be there when he was there with his camera. Pigeons are relatively slow flyers, and this would have been about the easiest bird to get in this manner (assuming this is all a single photograph).

Pigeons have been described as "rats with wings," so I understand your take on the pigeon as a not-so-good symbol for life. They may be related to doves, but they aren't doves. But if Ugur had no intention to give symbolic meaning to the bird, perhaps it doesn't matter.

This raises a question that was discussed many weeks ago in a POW. It's very true that we viewers are free to interpret and react to a photograph in any manner that we wish. But what if we react to a photo (e.g., by giving it symbolic meaning, to use the current example) in a way that is totally outside of the photographer's thinking or intentions at the time s/he made the photo (e.g., no intentions whatsoever of having his/her photograph express symbolic meaning)? Are we still right in criticizing the photograph for not expressing the symbolic meaning in a way that we think is appropriate? [Note: this is a general question meant for all commenters and all POWs, and is not being addressed specifically to this POW or to your primary concern with this POW, a concern, by the way, that I would share.] It just seems to me to be unfair to any photographer to be criticized for an aspect (especially regarding interpretation) that was totally outside their thinking or intention when the photograph was made. I think we can still comment on and describe our thoughts and reactions to this aspect of the photograph, but the photographer is not at all responsible and shouldn't be held accountable on this kind of issue, IMO.... it's not fair to describe an attribute which the photographer never intended as "deficient" in some way. If you or others can counter my thinking here, I'd really like to read it; I'm not 100% sure I fully agree with myself -- my thoughts are open to counterarguments.