Shadow on the sand dunes of Oregon.

Nice lighting effect however it was achieved - digitally or not. As for originality, well I don't consider it at all original. There is a similar photo that precede's it by a decade or so in the Pro-Lighting Book (published by ROTOVISION) titled "PORTRAITS" both on the inside double spread title page and on pages 140-141 (as well as on pages 136 and 137 in the Chpater 7 title pages photo montage. The image is called "Dark Angel" (way before the TV program of the same name) and uses a shadow of myself on the Santa Barbara County Court House in California (sorry, no sand dunes in Oregon). There is no digital manipulation as the image was taken 6 years before I ever owned my first computer and it was done with a 25-50mm f/4 Nikkor zoom at 25mm. The image, reproduced from a Type R print of my original Fujichrome slide is slightly cropped, especially the feet, in reproduction. "A low west-coast setting sun at an oblique angle to the court house, and some deft positioning of my body, enabled me to get a shadow that is both a flat shape and appears to recede three-dimensionally." Also, if memory serves, Lee Friedlander used to do a lot of shadow self-portraits in black and white during the 1960's. There are probably many other examples of this idea I don't know about/haven't seen...

Everyone's an f-in' expert.

 

Good job Razvan!

 

""Everyone's an f-in' expert."

 

-- Markku Kivinen"

 

Why thank you very much, I guess I am an expert though not an "f-in'" one :-)

Lewis Lang:

So there might be plenty of Shadows on sand out there that I'm ignorant of. I'm not a f***in expert.:) But: let's take a... papertoys manufacturer, for eg (there's a name for that that I cant remember right now) and the paper butterfly he's just made...Do we need to see all the paper stuff thas ever been made in order to be able to say that paper butterfly is an original one?

My point is that EVERYTHING is PALIMPSEST.And the idea may be the same but the way it's expressed- the details, the nuances, the context, all that je-ne-sais-quoi which makes u feel like u're having some kind of private revelation- that's what renders it unique. I'm afraid nowadays that's as good as it gets with originality. An artist, even a contestatary one, cannot break away from the cultural background. That's common knowledge.

For u to dismiss this shadow as not original cause it's been done before...well, it just seems terribly superficial, comin' from "NOT a f***in expert"

Your comment is basically what Ovidiu Moise argued, but u probably didn't go through that...I didn't make a comment on his comment cause he did it for me. Smart fella...

I like to look at this image.

teo secara... I stand by my comments and I think your comment that "My point is that EVERYTHING is PALIMPSEST.And the idea may be the same but the way it's expressed- the details, the nuances, the context, all that je-ne-sais-quoi which makes u feel like u're having some kind of private revelation- that's what renders it unique. I'm afraid nowadays that's as good as it gets with originality." What a defeatist attitude! - so everyone is left making micro changes of uniqueness on an already established idea to be considered original. To me, *that's superificial* and simplistic and narrow minded in the extreme! "An artist, even a contestatary one, cannot break away from the cultural background. That's common knowledge." That's baloney (or balogna - however you want to spell it or slice it). Picasso was able to bring (along w/ Braque) the new style/way of looking at things called Cubism by doing precisely that - by borrowing styles of representation from African tribal art and Iberian culture. Gauguin attached Christian and metaphysical themes to a Post-impressionistic style he seems to have gotten from Bernard. Both Gauguin and Van Gogh were influenced bu the lines/flat planes of Japanisme (sp?) from another culture, Japan, as well as adding their own ideas and subjects to the mix. "For u to dismiss this shadow as not original cause it's been done before...well, it just seems terribly superficial," - for superficiality and narrow mindedness you need look no further than your own mirror or at most art that has transcended both its culture and its time. ³"comin' from "NOT a f***in expert"" - actually I am an expert at doing my own surrealistic photography and have studied countless photographsthat were made from the dawnof photography to the present as well as painting and other arts but thank you for the complement minus the "f***in" part anyways. "Your comment is basically what Ovidiu Moise argued, but u probably didn't go through that..." Yes, I did read his comments, thank you very much, and I thought that my comment still added something to the fray - you do not, big deal. Though I agree with his observation that ³It is true that even small variations from the original images might be considered nowadays original.² I don¹t agree in the sense that even though a small variation might be *considered* original that it *is original* regardless of how its considered. ³Micro-changes² don¹t do it for me, and since we were asked to comment on the photos originality (or lack thereof) I did. I didn¹t see it as being any significant change or addition to any of the past shadow self-portaits I¹ve seen and its as simple as that. Like it or leave it. "I didn't make a comment on his comment cause he did it for me. Smart fella...

 

-- teo secara" Whether you make comments on comments is up to you. I stand by both my sets of comments. Live with it, or not, deal with it, or not. Have a day...

I have to say Nice Work Razvan! At first I was skeptical about the source of this image, and with some of the prompting above, I tried to tear it apart in Photoshop but having played with it I come back to this: It is a visually interesting image and I'm not tired of looking at it after a few minuets. I'm inspired to try my own so I have to say thanks!

 

John

Very nice picture, Razvan.

 

A small comment though... I thought this was a site where you learn about photography and not one on which you try to win a polemic contest...you should all go on a chat room and let out your frustration there...

 

 

 

 

The picture is very unusual. I'm not crazy about it, it kind of gives me a headache. But it's interesting. I did not look up the original but the color is very interesting. The light is clearly coming from behind the subject as far as that goes, so I don't know what that's all about. Do all these POW's attract so much vehement discussion?

1st i need to apologize publicly for the "Not f-in expert thing".It was my mistake in the sense that it came out wrongly.What I meant was to say:.."this coming from an expert who is NOT a f-in one" otherwise I would have said "a f-in NOT expert". But I take full responsability for the mistake.Very sorry. I see you're very touchy about this "expert" issue..:)

As for the other things: the irony is that u didn't see that what u've so aggressively argued does not contradict in fact my p.o.v.: that we're stuck with these means of expression, we're not martians so we cannot create smth TRULY original.Iberian, African etc cultures ARE part of the humanity's cultural background! But I'm not gonna continue to argue here, I agree with Oana Tremblay. Too bad u don't have an email address as I would have liked a chance to reply...

Just one thing though: the fact that u expect that kind of a one-in-a-life-time originality from wannabe artist photog on photonet and that u won't settle for anything less from them, makes u a Don Quijote of the art of photography..:)I don't even know if that's funny, or admirable...A little of both, I guess...

Congratulations, you've got a lucky face!

I think Dan Blair said it perfectly. "I like to look at this image." In truth, shouldn't this be what its all about? Whether this is the original, or digitally enhanced, if it is visually appealing, is there anything wrong? Is it ethically wrong to post a photo which has been digitally altered? I enjoy looking at this photo.

 

Photography is an art, as I like to say, for it applies well to myself, an art which is done by those who cannot draw or paint or sculpt. It shouldn't matter how the photo is taken, or even manipulated, if it comes out visually pleasing then the photo is well done. In my opinion, this is what photography all boils down to.

 

Great photo, I really enjoyed it.

 

 

 

nice to see

nice to keep

nice toooooo

It's ironic that today a photographer actually has to convince people that a good picture isn't a computer fake. The most compelling argument against this being "real" is the "no undulating shadows" argument. I took Razvan's picture and turned up the brightness in Photoshop. You can clearly see evidence of sand dunes in the shadow. I believe that Razvan just darkened the shadow enough so this became "invisible". I wish some of the negative posters here could've done the same simple experiment to see for themselves!

Generally a shadow in the photo is considered to be a photo of wrong angel.But this one is really wonderful.This will really change the trend.

- senthilscientist

 

the image looks as if the values in the sand have been "flipped," thus making the footprints seem to rise above rather than sink into the sand. (i may be in error about this but the footprints appear to me to be disturbingly convex.) i also think the picture would look better without the photographer's shadow.

I agree with Dave's hypothesis on topgraphic inversion. I have taken similar pictures of bare-footprints on beach-sand during sunset and when they came out of the lab I was looking at what looked like protruding murals of my feet rather than inset volumes. The lack of undulations on the edges of the shadow remains a question though..

WOW !! this is interesting, I can see it now, those aren't hills, those are 'holes' if you try to think of that when you're looking a the photo, you will realised that it is not manipulated !!!

 

good photo !! it gave me a workout for my brain

The footprints appear inverted. When one walks on sand, the footprint is depressed into the sand. In other words, what I see in this dunes pic are just the opposite. hmmmm. They look as though they are actually raised. Lighting wouldn't cause this optical illusion, would it? It's against the laws of nature. Interesting shot though, nonetheless.

While I basically agree with Jennifer Lords (or whoever is hiding under that pseudonym,) I think this photo is also a great illustration about what is wrong with most photographers:

 

THAT HUGE F**KING BAG HANGING OFF THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S SHOULDER!

 

You are either too tired from being packmules or too preoccupied with making sure you have every piece of gear necessary to cover every possible situation that you can't mentally focus on making decent images. you just don't free yourself up enough to do more than mediocre work.

Ellis:

I like your comment. You never fail to put lipstick on your lips and impress us all. That is not a bag. If you look closely. Can you look closely? Really closely. It is my front panier from the bike. Not all of us can be above the average photographers. What would the world be with only pros like you? We all need to start somewhere, don't we ?

Touche Razvan. You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...

The digital manipulation changes the tone of this image alot, it makes it very dramatic to me. With no explanation it looked like a shot in the snow or sand that was lit by a campfire or tungsten light. Very ominous, even sinister compared to the original. I think digital manipulation is fun and is good compared to darkroom techniques because it can be done so quickly and cheaply, this is a good example.

Reading other critic's comment: Why picking a photo to pieces. If it holds the attention for some considerable time,- what else does one ask for?- I do like surrealism - and this picture is in my view surreal. To Tzvika Bar-Chaim: I do draw, paint and sculpt, besides taking photos, since the age of 10!

Adelaide S.A.

WHAT WAS THE AIM?

The author would have done better if he/she had not given the picture a Titel. Why describing something which is visually obvious,- except for historical shots? If it isn't obvious let the onlooker do their own interpretation; it is so much more fun looking unbiased at an object. Why not calling this print: Shadow Series Nr.1? This picture does compute with me OK. Adelaide SA