Fire

First of all, I like the picture. I think it's pleasing from an aesthetic point of view. Well composed and plenty to keep you interested. I don't particularly mind if it is a photoshop creation, although this would make it less impressive. If it were an in camera double exposure, I'd say it was very very impressive indeed.

 

Usually people are too quick to cry "manipulation!" here, but I think this is doctored. Here's what I notice...

 

First, the light source for the girl seems inconsistent with the light source outside. If it is candle light, there is no way it would compete with the outside light and reflections. If it were on camera flash, it would not have the warm tone but would be similar to the outside lighting (unless the flashead were covered with a filter). If it were interior overhead lights, well, where are the shadows on her face (and again, could it compete with outside light and reflections)?

 

Next, there is an odd break in the lighting of the reflected buildings right where you see the jagged white vertical streak. I brightened the whole frame up in photoshop and it is clear that the white streak is not the ladder. What is it? Also, the buildings get much darker to the right of the streak. Perhaps there was a daytime and a nighttime exposure.

 

Note that the reflection of the tape merely indicates that the second exposure would need to have been made while the tape was still there.

 

So am I wrong? Is it real? Anyway, it's been fun trying to figure it out...

 

This screams montage to me. it is extraordinarily well executed and is a beautiful finished piece, but the lighting doesn't match, and the reflections don't seem like they would fall this way in real life (the exterior reflections conveniently falling off where the woman and her spot light are). I don't buy this is a real shot, if it is I would like to see some other shots from the same session, showing me the same subjects, but not so perfectly montaged, Then I would believe it. Photoshop has been around a LONG time, and there are people that are this good. Again, beautiful shot, but I don't think it is a "camera" creation.

That white thing is glare off a polished door frame. That jagged thing is reflection of the cloth from the shades.

this is one of the most COOOOOLEST shots i have ever seen if every one is asking is it real or PS then man you did a job well dun hold your head up

first, you read the light . . . .

 

'Photography in the Age of Falsification", May 1998, Atlantic Monthly magazine

 

If this doesn't make the case for categories, I don't know what does.

Is the truck putting out a fire, or power washing the building? By the looks of the "caution tape" and the casual manner of the b-day party, it looks as though there is no real danger.

Just curious.

Either way.., a fabulous shot!

Whether photoshopped or not, the concept is still marvellous. Well done!

What a great photo SHOULD do....draw you in for a really close look. This "photo" is either dumb luck or this guy should blend photos for the CIA.

I don't care which. Great entertainment value.

Interesting how the fire in the candles appears to point *towards* the girl as she blows. This new effect is worthy of publication in Nature. Otherwise, it's a nice shot.

Colin: would that explain the need for the "firefighters"? Talking about which: where I live, fire trucks are usually RED or LIME.

Being no PS master, I'm not too sure of what to look for in very well PS executed images...I sure can spot an avg. PS job though.

 

The comments I'm hearing is that it's either PS'd or it's dumb luck. I think it's neither. I think that Paal was walking down the street with his siser or girlfriend and happened upon this fire. He got as close as he could to the action and would have had plenty of time to go inside the cafe, order a cake and set frame.

 

Whether it's PS'd or not, I'm 100% positive that this scene was created. It was not stumbled upon. I'm sure some street gawkers were asked to move out of the way for a couple of mins to take the photo.

 

Either way, great execution of an interesting image.

 

Oh and I don't think it's window washing going on in the back. Look at the smoke billowing out of the window and into the sky.

 

 

Having some extra time on my hands, I pulled the image into photoshop and simply up-ed the levels. All the detail of the interior of the cafe behind the window is pulled out and it's pretty clear to me it's not a photoshopped image. Staged, perhaps, but that only would highlight its excellent execucution. If it is staged, I see no difference between this and studio work, which is equally valid and good. If it's not staged but perhaps a happened upon situation, even better. Overall I think the image is a great one.

I did the same as Rob, also find it hard to label this a montage.

 

Good perspective, superb juxtaposition and irony. Sufficient foreground detail to see the pack of Camels (I think.) The cafe light mystifies; no matter the magnification I can't find the source - but note the light arc in the rear of the cafe.

 

Heck of a lot of piping in the background near the engine : is it a fire engine or a powerwasher - don't really mind.

 

Wonderful concept, great execution.

This photograph shoes true vision and great compositional techniques.

 

To the comment that photography only represents something that really was there -- in your mind only! From the very early days of photography there have been "fakes," such as arranging Civil War scenes before the photo was taken. If you moved half the furniture to the other side of a room and then took a photograph, the room would appear to be empty, but in reality it's still full of furniture. This photo is so wonderful simply because there is a compositional idea, not just a process of recording what is already there. Photography to me is about the presentation of reality.

There are so many creative people that use photo.net; I don't understand why so much time is devoted to the 2photoshop vs not2photoshop discussion. It seems like noise that destracts from otherwise insightful comments.

 

The real question is: do I like the image? Is it pleasing? The choice of techniques, photoshop included, is less a measure of quality than the final image.

 

I happen to like this one, because I like how the scenes are juxtaposed, regardless of technique. If I like a picture, I try to understand how it was taken and contructed; if I don't like it, I move on.

Ok, PS or no PS ? Here's what I can tell at this point...

1) This vertical jagged line looks more like a computer line, from what I see here than any other real outline I can think of right now. But that alone doesn't mean it IS a PS montage. ALL THE CONTRARY ! If somebody is smart enough to put all this together on the right side in PS, he certainly can't be negligent enough to leave such a " break line " in the frame.

2) The reflections: as far as I can tell, they are realistic. Besides that,it is pretty clear to me that if I would be asked to put such a shot together in PS, I would start with an original image of the street, which already has these reflections. Too difficult to re-create these reflections - if that's even possible at all. So, the reflections are real.

3) The people ? Mmmm... This is too perfect to be true, imo, as far as poses are concerned, so I doubt very much that this would be a grab on the way home. I'd therefore tend to bet on a posed session... Maybe the photographer saw people in there having a birthday party and got them to come to the window and pose... (Not sure, but that's how it COULD have happened)

4)The candles have already been blown on half of the cake, so this is AFTER she blew. If this was shot for an ad, I'd say that the candles should ideally all be lit.

5) The light on her: strange indeed. Clearly not candle light, and I see no ceiling spotlight here that could explain it. But actually there are a few shadows - which I can unfortunately not make sense of at this point. Could she be that bright and well-lit without PS...? OF COURSE... You would just need a spot light on her - an halogen or such would do. OR... it could be dodged. But the more I look at this shot, the more I feel there is just a spot on her falling from the top front of her (see shadows of plates).

Conclusions for now: looks like a posed session, but not perfectly done as most ads would normally look like. So, more like a quickly improvised touch-up on an existing scene found that day.

Could it be PS ? Of course. Would it be genius work if it were PS ? No, sorry. If all a PS artist does here is to strip in the woman (or even both persons and the cake), meaning if the reflection are on the original street shot (and as I said, I believe they are real reflections anyway), then this is a piece of cake to achieve in PS (pardon the pun about the cake thing).

So, what do I make of all this in the end ? First I like the shot very much. I'm at the same time very interested in the answers to the questions above, and sad. Sad that today's technology has lead us to question everything as being either fake either real. I wish we could still appreciate this as an image and believe in it. Like we believe in a magician's tricks.

If tomorrow I'm asked to put this up in PS, and paid for it, if I need the money, I'll do it, but not if my my bank account is ok. Why ? Because I personally (SUBJECTIVELY) don't like to use PS to make a scene look real, which wasn't real in the first place. Just my own preference, and no ethical judgement here.

Basically, a fantastic image if it's a grab redodged later. Good but not aesthetically perfect if it's a grab rearranged last minute and shot as is. Very good but not more than that if it's an advertising shot posed and shot as is. And very good but not a genius work at all if it's PSed (which I truly doubt, but it could be).

I hope this makes some sense to show that details are required on such images to rate them properly.

So, no rating till I get more details, but anyway congrats on a very good - and possibly excellent - image, depending HOW it was generated, and for the reasons stated above.

No matter what, congrats.

Well, i'm just a beginner at photography with little experience and equipment, but wouldn't it be possible to achieve this lighting scenario if you take a double exposure: the first being metered to the outdoor brightness or one to two stops under, and then the second, with a strong ND-Grad vertically aligned such that the "fault-line" passes right where the safety tape ends? Then u can further expose the indoor without overexposing the outdoor light? (but then there is the problem of timing since the exposures would technically "look" different)

Could someone who lives in or near Oslo kindly nip round to this street and find the caff and ask if they've had a fire and a photographer recently? Might settle this question that seems likely, otherwise, to consume the rest of the week.

This constant bickering about whether an image is "made in PS" or not, is totally stupid! Get over it and join the 21st century!!! Photographers HAVE ALWAYS manipulated their images! The choice of film, filters, dodging and burning in the black and white darkroom. Setting up shots etc. etc. Be thankfull that we live in interesting times! The computer has opened a whole new way of seeing and expressing our vision of imagery that has yet to be realized!! All of the trogladites who abhor change will soon die off and like the rise of "Rock and Roll" "Jazz" "Impressisim" "Cubism" and all other art forms that were put down by the small minded of there time have faded into dust. Because the human soul must find new ways of expressing its self. Each generation must find it own way of meaning to them. I personaly can not stand "Rap music" BUT I respect it as a valid art form. I have been involed in the "art world" for more than 30yrs. And find this constant resistantce to change, very boring. Use the tools we have and stop looking to the past as the "Only Way" There are many roads to enlightenment.

I am not finding the photo aesthetically very pleasing. Regarding originality: It is based on a contrast between fire and firefighters. Many photos are based on a contrast between two opposing events. I am just finding this one a bit boring. It falls into the category of contrasts between fire and water, big and small, dirty and clean etc. I would prefer some kind of more intriguing contrast if a photo is going to be based on it. The photo is certainly interesting (if it was not manufactured in PS). The coincidence of such two events is interesting. The photographer was prepared and used his opportunity. Overall, I would rate the photo Average/Fair+.

 

If you aren't sure, don't accuse. Ask questions, but don't accuse. It is an average photo in my book, nothing to hook me.

Because of the destruction caused by the fire, "funny" isn't the word I would use to label this image. Creative and opportunistic, yes. I really like the shot except for the extreme grain/noise in the sky.

There's reasonable doubt to make some of us think about how much here is fake (photoshop or not) and real (staged or not). Of course I'm not accusing, just wondering.

The point is NOT related to a "do I like it or not?", "is it art or not" and "if this is art, then nothing have to be argued" concepts. Those are matters appart, perfectly valid for another point of view (BTW: I like it too). The central matter here is "Is it real or not? Did it really happened or it was artificially created"?

Everyone of us waits from a photography some kind of documentary assertion, a way for the photographer to say "Hey, I was there that day and look what I saw!" Every argumentation about the photography of the 21st century, and the way that a shot is basically a lie since it's only "a crop of reality" is pure nonsense here, since I only want the most simple question answered: Did it really happened or not? Everyone of us know that's relatively easy to lie with images and it has been made from the very beginning of photography...

If the scene isn't real, then Paal should had to declared it. It's a simple matter of ethics.

And then the second part of the question: if this is a real shot... How the photographer adjusted exposure to get an even exposition of the whole frame?

Reached this point of the discussion, I think it's time for Paal to get in and enlighten us.

Having read all the previous comments, I have a couple comments of my own. Never having been to Norway, I can't vouch for the color and construction of fire trucks there, but this does look more like a power washing going on too me, which would render the irony mute. There is not enough information here for the image to hold my attention. As for the PS or not Debate, my biggest issue with PS is when it is not held out as such. When it is used and represented as original, it is fraud. It PS'ers are so proud of their craft, stand up and say "this is PSed", then it can be judged on its merits. For the record, I don't think this is a montage, but I am no PS expert.

To happen upon such a photographic moment is incredible. Given the PS paranoia that keeps rearing its relentless, and boring, head, it's not surprising this image would prompt incredulous reactions. I don't care too much how this image derived, although I'll admit if it's a factual shot, that reality does add layers of implication and meaning for me. Simply because that's the kind of 'found art' photography I like and do for myself. But I think it's rather hypocritical to fuss and fume about PS'd images after all the oohs and ahs over the studio "lightpainting" fairy nonsense. That one manipulative technique or another is more or less "difficult" does not add value to the end result, other than feeding one's romantic notions about the process itself. Studio shots are phony from the get-go, while revered photos like Cartier-Bresson's man jumping over the puddle would be subject to the same "is it real, or is it PS" scrutineering if it were submitted now. Yet C-B's odds of capturing that were no better or worse than this photographer coming across this scene. Judging from the other photos in this portfolio, which are obviously straight photography, he is an excellent photographer with an abiding respect for the medium. I think this is a fantastic photograph .