Click... (no digital trick...)

This image shows us something of how to use contrasts; the visual contrast of a small area of color against a neutral background, and the conceptual contrast of a single mounted slide with many unmounted. The idea communicated could be "it takes a lot off clicks to get the shot", and this image could be used that way in promo materials. But then, perhaps the other mounts should be filled, but not illuminated.

 

Perhaps the larger ponderable here is whether it matters that a lightbox trick and not a digital trick was used to create the image. It could be argued that a tool is a tool, and that what counts is the result. Ah, now I can hear them all clamoring, "a digital tool is not a photographic tool!!!"...

Is there another photo.net somewhere in this universe where the same old Photoshop "Question" is not such an ever-present issue? Is anyone else besides me tired of the endless debates over the morality of digital alteration? Because just about every image here is subject to some sort of photoshop clarification: No I didn't, or yes I did, or Yes I did, but I'm not telling, or, you liar, I'm sure you did, etc. This shot in particular, as routine in concept now as it was in the days before Photoshop, can still be done the old way, or the new way, and the result would be the same as we see it. Yeah, sure, it's a great shot. But, if all it can do is foster more discussion on the validity of Photoshop, and "what is photography?" then, ho hum, I'm not interested in it, sorry. Christian has some excellent, clean, creative and graphically strong images, of which this is just one. The fact that he did them using "pure photography" is no longer impressive in this day and age. Neither would it be impressive that they were created using Photoshop. What I'm impressed by more than technique, or tool, is that the image was in the guys' head to begin with,that a brain could concieve an image in the first place is the first and most important thing. Putting it on paper (or whatever) is obviously important, and is what really separates the Artist from the Dreamer, but is still just the mechanics of making concrete what is in an individual's imagination.

This is one of my favorite photos I've seen on this site. Thanks for posting it.

I need one for my wall. How much do you charge for 8*12 prints? :)

We can make all the comments and critiques that we want about how the author could have made a better picture. But what we mustn't forget is that the author did this picture to please his own specific taste and sense of artistic vision and esthetics. It wasn't done to conform or please someone else's idea of what art is. Too many cooks spoil the soup. You either like it or you don't. Right?

I bet most folks that have viewed this image thought, "Oh, another digitally manipulated image." but FINALLY a photo that really IS a PHOTO and not some digital creation! It shows all the techno freaks that creativity comes from the mind, not Photoshop!

 

Nice Job! Thanks for putting photography back into Photonet!

PROOF that a photographer can be inventive and make a great image without the aid of digital trickery. Danke vielmals!

It applied to a lot of things. A way of showing the determination one needs before getting the perfect shot.

Christian,this photo is a funny idea and the technique is nearly perfect.All of your portfolio is wonderful, and I noticed that you areattracted by the 'small single subject that stands among others'(I hope my english translation is meaningful), such as in thefollowing photos:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=859510

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=857620

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=857618

which are just exquisite - again good ideas and perfect technique.

Sorry, but why bother? It's too contrived.

Moderator edit of one off topic line

Interesting idea, even though some have said it has been done before. However, the concept is not yet fully developed. Echoing certain comments of Scott Blair and Tommy Marks, I would suggest that the slide mounts actually contain images and that a loupe - instead of a cable release - be used as the foil. In addition, a more readily identifiable "lit" image would continue to add to the theme. This is a concept that begs to be explored further.

 

... and yes, slide mounts do come in grey.

Simply put, this is a great image. It's eye candy, indeed, for both photographers and non-photographers. The subtle, slightly bluish, slate gray background makes a perfect foil for the bright yellows and oranges in the small colored slide. The placement of the slide is strong (I'm not a big believer in rules for rules sake, but the placement works here). I understand the desire to see a loupe instead of a cable release (can't find a place to plug a cable release in on my light box, but mine's a pretty cheap one), but it would have to be a pretty non-visually-weighty one not to unbalance this pic. The upper left quadrant feels empty to me, but I don't know that filling it would improve the image.

 

Lots of discussion about "real" vs. "digital" technique generated by this image, which is fine. I do tire of seeing images that are essentially entirely digitally generated but without creativity, though I think there's a lot of good, creative digital work getting done (and posted here). I'm impressed with the creativity and technique used to get this shot, and the effect is, well, effective. Perhaps that's enough.

 

Damn nice portfolio overall. Good vision and great eye for balanced compositions. Enjoy.

A little too much empty space to the left and upper corner. Very original and all in all well composed and thought out.

Yes, the composition is excellent. And no, the grey area top left IS NOT a problem - it needs to be. For those who objected to it, there is this fine arts rule: an image should have 3 different areas. A high density area, a medium density area, an empty or almost empty area. By he book, Chirstian's choice of having this empty area is therefore justified - it allows the eye to rest. The medium area is here at the edge of the grey area, where we have fewer frames (3) moving into the grey. If there would be a possible improvement to the composition, by the book, it would rather be to take a few frames away, in order to have increase the size of the medium density area - and NOT to add anything in the top left.

I venture to ask what the critics of this photo find "interesting". Great imagination by the artist in my opinion. It really shows a true devotion to his art form. Taking this picture as it is, it's an excellent photo.

Idea in the same league as "10 empty bottles, one full" or "hundred photos facing the table, and 1 upsides" et cetera. Contrast low. Does not look good. I do not feel anything for all that plastic. Photos like this are close to building card houses, setting up et cetera. I like spontaneous things. PoW's rarely are like those.

It's cool that someone did this the old fashioned way instead of in PS as most people would do nowadays but I'm not sure if novelty over aesthetics makes for POW material.

I really like it. Nice idea, and nice composition of the slide frames. I tend to agree with earlier comments and feel that the shutter release could have been left off. I'd be interested to know what light was used for the foreground.

Had a look at the experimental folder: All the images are somewhat related. They are kind of advertising images, but of yester-year.

Congratulations on the recognition, Christian. Your folder and your explanation of the process are a fine example of taking a signal in your brain and by work,making it exist in the real world to share. And that process is what I congratulate. Because some of your other experiments are even more of a delight. I wish I had that devotion to detail, and your sense of design. And your dash of audacity thrown in. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. One day you will be leading workshops I bet!

Yes, yes, the intricate craftsmanship that went into this is impressive and the resulting image is an unimpeachibly pleasing commercial composition, but there's no drama and not much soul to my eye, at least in the JPEGs here.

 

I know my taste isn't everyone's, and that's what makes the world an interesting place, but to me fawning over this when (in my opinion, anyway) its merits are mostly in the backstory of how it was made is like deciding which rock'n'roll song is the best one on the basis of which one has the fastest, most complex guitar solo. All the images in this folder are in a similar vein, all the sort of thing that would be splendid on the cover of a photography magazine or on the wall of a nice restaurant--but to me, many of them have a lot more soul than this, even if less manual labor with tweezers and X-Acto knives went into their making.

 

Since a big part of photo.net is its educational role, I'm happy enough to see this as a POW: it's an educational image, especially when accompanied by the the details of its making (and the discussion that's followed).

A great start for an idea, but one that doesn't work as well as it could. The color slide is so small in comparison to the frame, it really destroys the impact of the idea-- The vast majority of the image is a dull gray. Also, the cable release seems like an afterthought and takes away from the original idea. You really don't need 100 empty slide mounts showing to imply a pile of empty slide mounts-- this image needs to be shot a lot closer so the slide is much larger. Reducing the size of the pile and moving the image slide more into the corner would allow the same basic composition but with more emphasis on the color slide. Nice idea though, and one that needs to be developed.

I viewed the pic. I read the comments. Here are my two cents:

 

I like the concept. I disagree with the comment about there being too much 'white space' in the upper left corner. If the 'white space' were not there the picture would be too busy and I think it would have a cluttered feel.

 

As for the technique you used to create the photo, well I must applaude you. I would have taken the easy way out and use Photoshop :-)

 

I think the fact that you created this pic without the aide of Photoshop speaks to your commitment to your art in it's true origional form.

 

I would like to point out however that I feel Photoshop is a valid tool for a photographer to have in his bag of tricks. Creativity in any medium is, after all, creativity.

 

As for the "prop" - I think the pic would be just as striking with or without it.

 

The only thing *I* find distracting is the subject of the color slide. I find it hard to determine what it is and I find that it causes me to focus on just that one aspect of the pic rather than to step back and take it all in a as whole. Had it been me I would have picked an image that was easier to pick out visual.

 

Just my own humble opinion.

 

Over all I dig it.