Fire

I was glad to read that the photo was not faked in Photoshop. A good documentary photograph.

 

The truly stupid comments that everyone should grow up and move the the 21st century where the use of photoshop to manipulate and combine images that never realy existed doesn't matter demonstrates a true lack of understanding of what photography really is. The comparison of darkroom techniques, or the use of filters to digital manipulation is so far from an accurate comparison that it should not require comment, but it still comes up. Digital manipulation is creative, and could be called art, but it is not photography.

first, excellent image, paal. everything excellent about it has already been stated. i, for one, never once thought it was digitally altered. my two cents concerning the debate on photoshop, etc... is that i abhor it. in my opinion it allows mediocre and insincere "photographers" to pass images (that were never much to begin with) off as good, or worse...great. paal, this image is a testament to the fact that with talent, thoughtful planning (even in the most hurried circumstance), a keen eye to visual concept, precise execution of procedure, familiarity with ones own equiptment, and an ability to recognize when something is and is not a subject , photoshop and its offshoots are not only unnecessary, but truly second class. i tip my hat to you for a truly outstanding image.

With regard to 'aesthetics', I believe that designation will be history soon, but the concept will still be with us. Some have stated that the highest rated images are defined as those that are framed and hung in the living room. To me that notion fails to take into account the various reasons for shooting various genres. Although Paal may have been there to take fire shots, that is not what this image is about, nor is it about a birthday celebration. It's about seeing the humor in the purely coincidental overlap to two events that could be interpretted as a single theme. It could be framed for your living room, but I expect a newspaper, book, or magazine would be more appropriate.

 

Philip, thank you for your description which I hope everyone will reread. This is how I think all images should be analyzed. . . . . This is the photographers purpose. Here are the elements I see. Here's how they contribute (or not) to the success (or failure) of the image.

 

There's your rating/ comments template. Thanks again, Philip.

Discussions (involving to digital or not) on photo.net in my opinion is often misguided as they often target an artist's credibility rather than the merit of his or her work. I have followed photo.net for over a year now and this is very very very very common discussion on the site. I think so many people on photo.net are wound up too tight. I think it really does not matter if a photograph has been altered in a digital OR traditional darkroom except in the case of Journalism and other forums where authenticity is important (like in a court case or an evidence photo). The process of Photography has always (even before the computer) been a multi step process of shooting, developing, and printing. With the advent of the digital darkroom tools (photoshop, computers, and photographic printers) artist have merely taken the process of manipulating light, which is at the core of photography, and enhanced and expanded the former limitations or inconvenience that the traditional darkroom posed. I am not a believer of the mantra that one MUST always "toil" with a piece of work in order for that work to be considered good and of value (although the digital darkroom process can, much like a traditional darkroom, offer many challenges). As cliche as it sounds, I truly believe the choice of how we carry out our photographic vision is wholly dependent on our own tastes unless, as I have mentioned above, we happened to be producing work for the field of Journalism and or other authentic sensitive / necessary fields. I don't believe the arena of Art falls into those categories. As far as I can tell, the artist has made no claims that this photo was shot under either of those conditions. The Artist has said it is unaltered (great), but even if he had said it was altered I still would not have any problems with it. Truly, what Art isn't a manipulation of something, some place, or some idea?

 

So beyond my ranting, I liked the photo, but I didn't find it particularly interesting beyond my admiration for the artist's technical abilities and the wonderful sense of light and mood created by the image. It makes me feel like putting on a raincoat and taking a walk down a city street during a rainstorm for some reason.

 

Andrew Huth

Yes, as suggested above the hydraulic lift in this photo is what we use in NY to do exterior facade work.....Like power washing 105 years of dirt and grime off a building. Secondly, if it was a fire there would be a lot more than 2 firemen on the snorkel. And again as for the photo, Paal, the shot is just great any way we cut it!!! Brad

Here's my thoughts:

 

First and most important: It's a nice picture and I like it.

 

then......

 

Even if the image was manipulated in photoshop...so what???

 

What's the big deal??? What's to pick about???

 

If it were two negatives manipulated in a wetroom would that make it "better" or more acceptable or less vulnerable???

 

Photography is art and science, **combined**.

 

Just sit back and enjoy the picture...that's all.

 

Marika

How do you think Paal felt when he saw the interplay of these two activities? I know! He was delighted! I've felt that way, too, when I saw something that I don't trip over everyday. I take pictures because I get a chance to share these 'aha' moments with others. If you have never seen something that you thought was a special moment . . . or a special place or time . . . just something that maybe someone else may never have seen before, or at least not in the same way, then I guess you can not appreciate these moments. But for them to have any meaning at all, THEY HAVE TO BE REAL. I'm not sharing some fictitous concept, it's real. The world is real. Look , listen, enjoy . . . and share. . . . . but please . . . don't lie to me.

 

It's not about PS. . . I don't care much for double exposures either. Show me what you saw.

Mark Richards' kitty photo is hardly a fake. The photo is of the F-14 Tomcat, the fighter jet made famous in Top Gun. Sadly, the F-14s are being phased out in favor of the F-18 Hornets, making for less interesting photographic possibilities...

Where's the humour? I see ignorance, selfishness, unawareness. It illustrates a 'no matter what, we're celebrating' attitude.

 

To this end it is NOT a good picture.

I have seen this a while back. I believe I remmember. I thought it was interesting. Good street photograph if nothing else. Good job. You could do without the small square of traffic post on the top right side but other than that its a keeper.

To Zapata's comment.

 

You call these people unaware and selfish. How do you know that they weren't already outside watching the blaze for 3 hours. Lack of firemen, tell me that the fire has subdued and that this is just safety spray that they are putting out. Maybe that building on fire is this couple's appartment and they ran out of it and into the nearest store for shelter??? Who knows. Anyways, I do not see a selfish side at all.

 

I just wanted to point out that in my opinion, there is not enough information in this photo to prove that these two people are thoughtless, selfish people.

 

THats all.

 

 

I love this photograph--as a novice it has me reaching for the stars! I'm so glad to have seen it today.

 

As for the signs on the left edge--I think they're not cropped out because they are reflected in the cafe window.

 

 

Where's the humour? I see ignorance, selfishness, unawareness. It illustrates a 'no matter what, we're celebrating' attitude.

To this end it is NOT a good picture.

Much have been said above about why this IS a good shot. There's a general consensus on the argument about the yuxtaposition of two meaningful, curious events. If it's humourous or not, that can be a subjective matter.

But BY NO WAY your is a photographical judgement. It is THROUGH this register of a real event, we can judge the photographed people and situation, but not the photograph itself, its technique and so on. The shot is just an objective document.

Following your reasoning, all of Sebastiao Salgado's work is pure garbage, based only on your opinion and subjective assumption about the photographed subjects.

I don't see any significant social issues here, let alone any "deep theme", just a touch of irony resulting from keen observation. Apart from the obvious juxtaposition of events, I like the progression from the warm tones around the cake to the cold tones in the rest of the picture, and the contrast between the cosy interior and the dimly lit street drenched in cold water. I also like the reflection in the shop window, but wish I could make out the second person just a bit more clearly. As it is, for me there's some confusion between the objects inside and the reflection. Overall, however, quite a sophisticated photograph.

I agree with Nestor. It should be possible to separate one's opinion of the subject (or the photographer) from one's appraisal of the photograph.

 

"I this this is a terrible photograph because it is a picture of a dog, and I don't like dogs". "I think this is a great photograph because it is a picture of a beautiful woman, and I like beautiful women." -- these are burlesques of reasonable criticism.

Absolutely splendid photograph for a number of reasons, the obvious one being the irony of the two fires being put out and two absolutely different contexts for these fires. In that alone, you have a thoughtful and witty dialogue between the tragic and common, personal and public, etc.

 

Beyond that is a marvelous diagonal line from left to right that functions like a see-saw, drawing the eye from one pole to the other and, hence, to the juxtaposed concepts. The woman's breath and the fire's spray oppose each other, making this line stronger, as does the contrast between a grim, cold-looking exterior and a warm and inviting interior.

 

Add that this was taken by a journalist on assignment, and you really have something special.

 

As to the people inside being selfish and the speculations as to how long they've been there, etc., one can also infer a rather optimistic if tough message from the composition, and that is: "Life goes on."

If this is a montage you might want to try a variation with someone just sitting there having a cup of coffee- some activity more ordinary than a blowing out candles on a birthday cake. This seems a little too obvious as a "message." Overall, I think it very much deserves to be picture of the week.

"It should be possible to separate one's opinion of the subject (or the photographer) from one's appraisal of the photograph."

Within reason, Brian. If it is obvious that the photographer is using the medium to peddle an agenda with which you disagree (or which is even inherently disagreeable... use your imaginations to think of one), isn't it valid to criticise the agenda, as well as the photogaph? Why should a photograph (or any artwork) not be subject to the same constraints as, say, written documents?

That birthday cake looks like a fire hazard. I'm surprised the whole block wasn't evacuated.

Greetings everyone,

 

I have to weigh in on the topic of digital PS manipulation, Art, etc. (and I don't think the photo in questions is digitized).

 

Let's reduce the whole question to First Principles. When the human eye "sees" something, it is recording light rays that have reflected off the surface of the objects in question. Most eyes work about the same, they see the same thing as anybody else's eyes under the same given circumstances. Thus, this gives rise to our commonly-held notions of "reality", that which is agreed upon by all via the common evidence of our senses.

Photography is the capturing of light rays on a permanent film medium, in real-time. Light reflected from the source object passes through lens/filter, and onto film. The lens and filter, and other darkroom techniques, can only block certain wavelengths of light, or alter those wavelengths slightly in the production of the final image. Neither the lens, nor the filter,

nor the dodging or burning, can add elements that did not exist in the original scene. I consider this as analagous to a stereo equalizer, which can mix the channels and volumes of the different wavelengths of sound, but does not add what was not there to begin with.

Digital pixels are simulacra of the real thing. When unaltered, they are acceptable substitutes for the film medium. But they can be infinitely manipulated, and require no fidelity with the original scene. That which did not exist can be made to seemingly exist. As with music, the difference between someone who plays an instrument, and a computer that copies the sound of the instrument electronically.

I think digital photography is not photography. It's something else. I'm not saying it's not artistic. I'm not saying it's not creative. I'm not saying I'm against it or against technology. But we need a new word to describe it. Before, "photography" was one of many branches on the tree of artistic endeavor. Now, a new branch has split off from it, with its' own identity and rules, and it needs a new name. Maybe Ars Digita? No, that's been taken...

 

Peace,

 

Chris Williams

 

Well to me, it just seems that the reflections (of the buildings in the glass) are just too good to be an actual photograph. Physically its hard to imagine you can get that much reflection off the surface of the glass while getting that much transmission through the glass. Additionally there is very little reflection of the caution tape. Also its stated that it was produced with a D1, which lessens the hurdle to digital manipulation.

 

Never the less, I really like it. I guess I feel like when I press the shutter, I want to MAKE

picture, not TAKE a picture. I TAKE snapshots, and MAKE photographs/pictures.

It's amazing what you can see in a photograph if you give it more than a cursory glance :-) . . . . The ''uset' in front of the man watching is the end of the word 'kaffehuset' which means 'coffeehouse'. There are three plates and three coffee cups so I suspect that there is a third person in attendance who got cropped off. That's fine; it makes for a better balanced composition without altering the message intended.

 

When we start getting into deep social statements about loneliness and detachment, I think we're going beyond the photographer's intent and projecting our own state of mind onto the image. That's OK, but I doubt that as a photojournalist, he had that in mind nor do I think an image needs to be able to spark those kinds of global concepts in the viewer to have photographic value. Paal, what do you think of these 'global concept' ideas?

Why does it matter?
Only you can answer that question.

For myself, it does matter.

The chance of being at the right place at the right time maybe one in a million. THAT adds to the value any photograph. Of course, many of us could pretend that we were there (in our imagination and photoshop). But, you know the truth in your heart (if that matters at all).

Paal, thank you for being there!

"The lens and filter, and other darkroom techniques, can only block certain wavelengths of light, or alter those wavelengths slightly in the production of the final image. Neither the lens, nor the filter, nor the dodging or burning, can add elements that did not exist in the original scene."

 

Tell that to the Soviets and all the others, be they artists, social commentators like Eugene Smith, or political machinators who've added or subtracted important elements to plain old film and prints.

 

Your basic assertion just isn't true.

 

As for this particular work, I'd suspect the Oslo FD would know if they dealt with a fire there. They seem to think they did.

 

This is a good reminder that you always need to carry a camera. Spectacular shot!

If it's a natural shot it is truly amazing. Perfect timing. If it isn't, then there are two good pictures here put together in an interesting and imaginative way. Pure photography maybe not but definitely a work of art.