Shadow on the sand dunes of Oregon.

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? Adelaide S.A.

I'm new to this site and as a fellow photographer I really enjoy looking at other peoples work, especially photographers who are creative. I'm not going to side with anyone on the issue of "digital manipulation" but I think the other people who left the bad comments should get a life. Who cares how the print was made. Only you know. You took the picture, got it posted, and I think that's something to be proud of.

 

And for Ellis: Like your so perfect that you never make a mistake? Putting down others and telling them in not so nice terms is a sign of immaturity. If your so "professional" why don't you offer some nice advice next time instead of putting him down. Lets see some of your work up on the site. I bet your just another person who likes to run there mouths. Get a life!

 

But anyhow, keep up the great work and don't let anyone tell you that you don't have what it takes to be a good photographer. Happy shooting!

 

Todd

I scanned the above comments, and I didn't see the following mentioned as evidence for the photograph being unmanipulated.

 

When you view your own shadow, the arrangement of shadow/light forms a circle around the shadow of the lens (or where the shadow would be if nothing blocked it). At the exact position of the shadow, the line of sight matches the line of illumination, so no shadows are visible. This creates the effect of there being a bright spot in the middle of a circle of objects with shadows.

 

This can be clearly seen when flying, for example, and looking at the shadow of the plane. It is also clearly visible in this photograph. In my view, it would be extremely difficult to simulate this digitally.

 

The inversion effect (it didn't affect me until I tried to see it) is a good explanation for why some would be confused about this image. However, consider this. Suppose for a moment that the subject really is illuminated as supposed in the arguments suggesting this is a manipulated image. If you follow the direction the shadows and intensity point, you wind up having to have a light source directly in the shadow of the photographer. Not only that, it would have to be a light source with 360 degree distribution.

Hmm, I'm a compositor by profession. If I had the task of making such a composite "buyable" I would displace the shadow's edge to bend and distord around over the ripples of sand. The undistorted edge of the shadow appears to be cast against an even surface, not a "lumpy" one. Nice photo though.

Candy for the eye-- empty calories, with no substance. Does the photo say anything? I don't receive a message. Does it show good composition? Centered shadow, horizontal frame should be vertical-- classic snapshooter's syndrome. Digital manipulation? Looks like it, but what's the point? Keep trying.

I thought it was a fake, because I was sure the mini-dunes were backlit. Then the inversion effect was suggested and Per Liden followed up with the inverted image 'sand.jpg'. Now I can believe it as is. A pretty neat optical illusion, though. I like the photo, and my hunch is it is better as is (more sand and less silhouette) than vertically framed or with the shadow to the left or right.

Doesn't anyone remember the photo of the "footprint on the moon"?

Notice the size of the footprint on the sand. It is roughly the size of his entire leg below the knee. That's impossible. Shadows can only appear to be the same size, or larger than the object creating them.

Come on guys, test if for yourself and see that it works. This is so sad.

Razvan, this is a great image. I enjoy looking at it. To me, that's all that matters. Thank you.

For whatever reason I found the image confusing. Having offered that I think that what speaks loudly, though, from the intense debate is that the wave of digital manipulation (of which I am not a convert)has changed true photography, i.e. capturing real events in that special moment of unique light, etc., into image production, and that regardless of whether or not this particular photo is a result of manipulation, digital imaging has cheapened the craft of photography.

 

It seems that virtually all images are now looked upon with suspect. We've gone from "oh, I just slightly corrected the sky color" to gross manipulation. Not that there isn't a market for it. But is it photography? Once an image is manipulated "post shutter" I feel that it is not photography...just more manipulation in a way greater than we might realize...

 

 

Made me do a double take...triple even. My 2 cents....er...1 and a half cents... is that any work that gets this much attention has something good going for itself, whether it followed the rules or not.

What is the purpose of photography ? Why do we take pictures? The simple fact that so many of us are nit-picking this guys work proves that there is something of an intangible element that we are trying to define or barring a that, denegrade. It is so easy to take pot-shots at a newbie or someone trying out a new effect. It is so much harder to DO IT OURSELVES.

 

I like the photo. It speaks to me. I want to try to recreate this same effect myself. (And I ask myself how many other similar shots have I missed because I wasn't enlightned) This photo whether digitally massaged or not is still perfect, because it represents the artists interpertation.

 

So instead of telling the artist that he is a liar and a cheat - offer constructive advice that will make him desire to try again. So we all get to benefit from his future works.

 

So quit yer bellyaching about this photo and make one yourself-- and if you have enough balls to submit it we will "comment" on it too. I am sure that we will provide you with constructive critisism...

If a photographer cannot express his true vision of an image then why even take the picture in the first place. Some of my favorite visions of photos where achieved in the digital darkroom on photoshop. I have some that contain four or five different images combined to make impossible images that trick the eye and really look great. All the images on this site that were not taken on digital comeras have been digitaly minipulated to post on the web so they can be seen. So good job on both photos. I like that you were bold enough to show your 'vision' of this photo with us. Keep shoting awya like the rest of us. The film's the limit.

Jeeeezzzz....did you ever think you'd create such a stir... I looked at this image because I was struck by it in a good way and just wanted to look closer. Light on the sand is an incredible gold.. And, love that you shot your elongated shadow.. Really makes the shot different and dramatic. It was quite entertaining to read all the above comments.. Only really good images get that kind of attention on photo.net - Ever notice that?

Razvan, it's a great photo and I'm glad you posted it for us. Personally, I love 'eye candy' and 'having my brain do summersaults' as other people have claimed as down falls for this photo.

Are we ignoring the fact that the photographer's right leg is larger than the rest of his body? I think he's an alien. GET HIM!!

 

heehee... Is it really THAT hard to see how this was done? If it were fake, this guy would be working for pixar, because there is nothing in the picture to indicate that it isn't real. Nice shot, cool colour modification.

The color is very striking. May be my monitor, but can you get the black blacker? Also, it would have helped if you figured out a way to hide the fact that you are taking the picture. Maybe put the camera on autotimer, attached to your body somehow and then done somekind of pose or possibly move your body off to the side. You have something here if you ever go back. Overall I like it.

I just ran across this photo. The light is correct with the photographers shadow. Put the photo in photoshop and rotate it 180 degrees. Look at what would be the lower left corner in the original which is not the upper right in the flipped photo. All the grains and blobs of sand are consistent as well as the shoeprint and the clunks of sand that fell off the heel. It will look as if the light is coming from the top of the photo, the direction that the shadow from the photographer is shown.

 

Our mind always puts light at the top of the photo, which is why the original looked wrong. It is indeed a proper photo.