Fire

"Does anyone really believe this happy couple would be calmly blowing out birthday candles as a 4 alarm fire rages outside?"

 

That's not an indicator of fakery. You can see that sort of behaviour in any large city.

Hello!

 

Amazing that this picture has a respond of 19000 hits!

For those of you who need an explonation, Yes the picture is real. Im a photojournalist and not in a habit of manipulating my shots.

 

I guess you can call it just another lucky shot.

 

It is a firetruck from Oslo fire department responding on a fire. The birthdayparty was happening and i did not stage it.

 

You can see it on this unoffical page for the Oslo firedep.

http://home.online.no/~larsen74/hoved/main.engelsk.htm

 

see photoalbum 1.

 

Thanks again for your responds and compation!

 

Paal Audestad

As a note to an earlier comment, there are fire trucks of this configuration in the U.S.

 

But, what has Paal have to say??

Thanks for your comments Paal, Excellent shot.

http://scratchy.spods.co.uk/~rubenstein/flyingkitten.jpg

It is a shame that people are discussing Photoshop (again.. yawn) instead of the image...

Photoshop is great (see above), but one of the joys of photography is the ability to capture delightful coincidences/occurences like this and say to the world, 'Look! These things happen!'.

Although lenses & film inevitably distort perspective, light, colour etc; only distort time, composition, and content unless the photographer intervenes (or uses some bonkers fisheye lens).

Look at the example above:

Everyone knows that kittens don't grow that big, and don't lie underwater waiting to snatch helicopters from passing aircraft carriers. This is obviously a fake, so people react to is as a fake...

Imagine what the reaction would be if this picture represented a real moment?! It would be worth a small fortune!

This is why Paal's picture is so fascinating; it represents (I'll take his word for it) a real moment. It is therefore (for most people) more 'special' than a composite.

As a composite, this would get lots of accolades (I belong to a small web community of amateur photoshoppers that try to make amusing/surrel fakes), but 'only' as a highly convincing piece of shoppery.

This is why people really must be a little more open about their photographs; if it is unaltered, then say so.

I'm not sure which are more tiresome; the people complaining about the of PS, or the people asserting that it doesn't matter if the 'moment' (time+composition+content) of a photograph has been altered or not.

Yes, we live in the 21st century blah blah blah. However, some people still believe in using photography to documents things as they are/happen.

Grrrrr.

This is very reminiscent of an often-reproduced photograph of a farmhouse fully engulfed in flames while firemen in the foreground visit some kind of roadside (produce?) stand. Does anybody remember that image and know where we can see it to relate? I don't think this image is in any way derivative, except in that life itself is derivative - and finding these common themes amuses and occasionally enlighten me.

It never occurred to me that this might be a fake.

 

Why not? Because people who make fakes in Photoshop don't come up with ideas like this. They come up with ideas like "let's have a kitten floating in the water waiting to catch helicopters flying off the deck of an aircraft carrier". They don't come up with ideas like "lets have a young woman blowing out birthday candles while outside the firemen put out a fire -- hey, kewl."

 

Almost nobody is brilliant enough to think of that, even assuming they have the Photoshop talent to pull it off convincingly. For juxtapositions like that, and the layers of meaning that they suggest, you have to take your camera out and be ready when reality arranges itself in a meaningful way for you.

 

Reality is more brilliant than you in creating surprising and meaningful juxtapositions. And that is why, in my opinion, photography is an important art form, and not just another tool for making images.

 

 

Congratulations, Paal.

 

 

Come on folks! These guys are using a steam cleaner to clean the facade of the building! Does this really look like fire department action??? Two guys on a CHERRY PICKER blowing wide steam nozzle and no one on the ground?

"This is why people really must be a little more open about their photographs; if it is unaltered, then say so."

 

If people were more open and didn't try to pass digital creations as real photographs, then there wouldn't be a point in labeling a real photograph as "unaltered."

 

Congratulations Paal for a wonderful photograph.

Remarkable photo... I have to admit I origianlly suspected some type of manipulation (composite and/or PS), but Nestor's brightened version allowed me to see enough detail to confirm it is not. And to reiterate to all those people seeing a powerwasher rather than a fire truck, look at the rising smoke coming from the lower portion of the building BENEATH the supposed powerwashers. It is a firetruck.

 

Since the discussion of this photo has been almost exclusively of the type "is it real or is it PS", how 'bout we get back on topic? Personally, I love the composition of the photo, and the irony is obvious for all to see. My one complaint would be with the printing/presentation. It is too dark, and the desaturation of the outdoor fire scene is over done. I understand that Paal was going for the dramatic here (i.e. emphasize the irony of these two incrongruous slices of life), but a *little* more colour and light would add a bit more contextual depth for the viewer to immerse in.

Tom,

 

The photographer of the picture you referred to with the fireman checking out the pumpkin stand while the fire in the background rages on, is by Joel Sternfeld, published with other photos in a book entitled "American Prospects". A lot of good stuff in there, but I don't know where it is located on the www.

OK, found a website with Sternfeld's pics:

 

http://www.hainesgallery.com/JSTERN.work.html

Dean Granros,

 

I just found that image a couple months ago. What a great shot! Thank you for reminding me of it.

 

Also, Paal, I'm glad to see you weighed in with your comments. Congrats again on an excellent shot.

I think Brian made an interesting point here:

"People who make fakes in Photoshop don't come up with ideas like this. (...) Almost nobody is brilliant enough to think of that... (...) Reality is more brilliant than you in creating surprising and meaningful juxtapositions."

While I agree with statement here about reality being brilliant - this POW is really one of the most original proofs of this I can think of -, I would nevertheless tell Brian this: "Don't under-estimate human mind" !...:-)

Actually, ideas as brilliant as this and of the same kind do exist, and are not that rare at all in the ad industry... Which is why it appeared to be that this MAY have been an advertising shot.

But back to the image... I think Nick Scholte made an interesting comment about the possible "desaturation" here, but I would personally tend to believe that in Oslo, the weather might be The Great Desaturator, rather than the photographer.

Would a bit more color actually be better ? That's a very good question. I don't think so. Visually more pleasant, yes, but NOT BETTER imo, even aesthetically. And ths is why... If the outdoors had brighter colors, these colors would catch the eye more than the woman in front. And also, the contrast between warm and friendly inside, and cold and dangerous outside, would loose impact and strength.

This truly is an amazing image. Tough to believe that such scenes can actually be waiting for photographers to photograph them, daily, all over the world. That's the magic I was hoping to be able to believe in - and now I can...:-)

Is it really tack sharp on the film is the last question I have...

Thanks, Paal, and sincere congrats on this shot. A:6 / O:7 (new scale).

I like this picture a lot. It is the kind of irony that I really enjoy. As for the "fire", I see smoke coming from the lower half of the building, and I don't expect to see tons of firefighters milling around where we could see them, I'd expect them to be IN the building fighting the fire. That is a fire truck, putting out a fire. Get used to it you all. :)

 

Technically, I have a problem with the desaturated colors of the outdoors, vs. the saturated colors of the scene in the window. My eye gets pulled to the window scene due to the warmth of that light. Where did that light come from on what looks to be an overcast day.

 

But still, I like it. In the real world, you take what you can get. And this one got gotten this way. A fantastic shot.

Marc, you're absolutely right, the desaturated outdoor, apocalyptic view contrasts nicely with the rich warm tones of the interior, "ignorance is bliss" view. I would certainly choose to print it in a similar fashion. We are likely splitting hairs here, but I think it is overdone in that when I give a quick glance at the photograph, my initial reaction is that the left hand side is in black and white. I tend to find that black and white images splashed with color tend to come accross as "kitschy" (personal view only). While I acknowledge the desire for desaturation on the left, I would prefer that it remain readily identifiable as a colour photograph (in fact, this is one of the main reasons I initially questioned this photograph's authenticity).

 

Edit added about 15 minutes later: In fact, the "desaturation" on the left probably isn't desaturation at all, but rather a product of the overly dark printing/presentation I commented on earlier.

Nick . . . I had exactly the same feeling. From a compositional standpoint I went right to the firefighters as the lightest area, then to the colorful area lower right. Then the color temperature difference bothered me, especially since I could not read the light source on her and the cake . . . . still can't.

 

Then Nestor's lighter version helped because it opened up the middle and tied the two different elements together. I downloaded and converted to grayscale . . . . works better for me. But perhaps more importantly . . . and we need to be reminded of this on a daily basis, perhaps . . . . compression of the images on this site blocks up dark shadows. Add this to possible improper monitor calibrations, and you have a hard time reading photos with dark areas. Even with the differences in color temps, I'll bet it looked fine when it was published.

 

For another version of this, go to this site, where there are a number of shots, by a number of photographers, of fires and fire scenes in Oslo. That version looks a lot better. The more I look at this, the more I am persuaded that this is just a really great grab shot -- although "grab" may not be quite the right word; Paal may have been hanging around the area for a while waiting for something interesting to happen inside the coffee shop. But in any event, it's a wonderful image.

The alternate version referred to by Dave Nance has about the level of colour saturation and brightness that I was seeking... less muddy while maintaining a pleasing contrast between the two halves of the photo.

 

Carl... you're right, many of the photographs displayed here at PN are likely darker than the prints for the very reasons you mentioned (and it doesn't help that my monitor - here at work - is probably one of those that is miscalibrated).

 

 

I don't see why are so many people concerned on where the light in her face came of. It's a fixture, similar to the visible one int the background, located in the ceiling, closer to the point of view than the table, and pointing to it. The light in the outside is dimmer (¿sunset? ¿clody?) and the buildings helps to dim it too.

a great shot by a thinking photographer. Excellent!

 

However, I think two things are very clear. In Mark Richards uploaded image the kitten is obviously not grabbing the helicopter, rather it is leaping, or flying, above it. If it were grabbing it then its little paws would be spread wider. Secondly, Mark more or less claims the kitten was underwater. Why then, is the kitten not wet? And everyone knows that cats, including kittens, are notoriously skittish around water. Mark is right. It's obviously a faked photograph.

 

Nice shot Paal. I'm a member of the photonet cropping society and I'm wondering why the road signs, to the left, were left in the frame. Seems like they don't really serve any purpose there. I guess someone could argue that they anchor the strip of caution tape.

 

great work paal...

When I first saw this image a while back, I though to myself what an incredible timing. I do not like digitally manipulated images but when I saw this image it did not even occur to me that it may have been one. What I deteste about digitally manipulated images are not only that it takes the captured moment out of the real perspective, but that it is usually done in a way that is glaringly obvious. This picture did not. The complexity of setting up the entire scene behind the glass window would have been very difficult to achieve what? A good picture from a dull one at best? There are better pictures to start out with and to spend so much time trying to digitally alter it. It goes against the norm of any reason why anyone would want to digitally alter this picture. That's probably why I never even begin to think that this may have been a digitally altered picture.

Congrats on the POW! Great timing!

In the photo presented as it is the lower street sign looks like photographer's thumb. That was my first impression. Then I figured out it is a street sign but I consider it a serious flaw. The left side of the photo is dark and lacks detail. It has a lot of grain. There is a telephone line going thru the frame. The upper street sign does not add much to the aesthetics of the photo either. I dont see anything special about the composition.

 

I dont see anything 'powerful' about the photo. The only thing I can see is that people consider photos showing some kind of catastrophy event 'powerful'. As I said before the complexity of contrast between the firefighters and the candles does nothing for me. I was attracted by it for a moment but then my brains refused it as a very cheap version of surprise. Where is something that would make me to want to see the photo again and again?

 

Looks more like a movie poster for a catastrophy movie. I am a bit negative about the photo but I would really finally like to see something 'common'. No catastrophy, no 40 milion people, no flash painting, no drunk guy, no face looking like the guy got hit by a hammer. Why do people think that an extraordinary event can do a photograph? It would be interesting to see photographs that show bored people or people going from work and you can see that the day really sucked. There are not too many of those. The reason is that those are hard to take since it requires an extreme sense for a given situation, good skills, it happens fast.

 

To sum it up. This photo is a great coincidence of two events but I think that photos with nothing extraordinary going on are more interesting anyway. Extraordinary defined as catastrophy, 40 milion people,...etc.

This is the first POW I ever commented on, which must mean something (my comments appear on at least one other POW, but were put there before the apothetheosis). Two comments: First, what on earth doea 'aesthetics' mean in a case like this, and a lot of others? What are the 'aesthetic' values of the photos from the German concentration camps, or from the Vietnam war? Not synonymous with pretty. The aesthetics here seem to me spot on - warm colours around the birthday scene, dark around the fire, lines converging from the birthday (in the foreground) immediately taking the eye towards the firetruck, where there's a a strong vertical to stop the eye (incidentally giving the fire equal weight with the birthday). That's aesthetics in the service of the picture, rather than aesthetics as pretty. Second, I see this photographer has a penchant for ironic juxtapositions - this photo obviously, the Korda/Che photo (two immortals and contemporaries, one considerably older than the other), even the supporters pic. This photo is part of a body of work (so far as I can tell from just 3 photos) which show an intensely personal style. Third out of two, ferchrissake shuddup about photoshop and critique the photo!