Paper and Marbles

To Michael Seewald:
PS If it's good as 'decorator' and 'bad' as photographer, as mentioned above, someone should retink their art theories.

I had said before that If you photograph a painting, what you get is neither a painting nor a photograph, that is a photo copy of a painting…

I know and admire your work since a long time and I have to say that I prefer this one image compared to your B&W work .
Why ? because I feel here some more consistance, more solid textures than in your smooth and almost transparent B&W pictures.
Also colors are so gracefully managed all together, as are dunes in desert Namibia.
I definitely vote for this so well deserved POW !

In my opinion, this picture is more like a graphic design than photography. If it were a graphic design, probably I would more emphasize composition and color comparison. For composition, I would more emphasize perspective or anti-perspective; for color comparison I would emphasize relationships of color complement or contrast. So in my opinion if it were a graphic design it is not successful. As it is photography I would consider “lighting” and “concept” – two important elements in photograph. For lighting I would like consider abstract lighting - apparently it is not a case in this picture, or Bill Tate already talked some lighting in general situation. For concept – Paper and Marbles, naturally I would think texture comparison. Apparently it is not successful in texture comparison. Please see Marielou Dhumez’s comment. So in my opinion it is not successful in photography side either.

This is a beautiful image.
It really is really challenging me in how I define/view photographs:

i.e. is a photograph of an art object such as these sculptures photos? Sure it is....I can artistically capture a Henry Moore sculpture -- it would be a valid photo.
If I were to photograph a photograph and make a very good accurate copy -- true to the original -- is it photography?
If I were to photograph a solid color - is it photography?
If I were to make an identical image of the solid color entirely from photoshop or illustrator -- is it a photograph?

Interesting thoughts.

 

To Phineas:
Probably it depends on if you have a recreation or not in Photography .
For example: if you shoot a sculpture, you have a recreation such as composition, lighting and so on in Photography, so you have a photograph; if you shoot a painting, almost you don’t have a recreation in photography, you don’t have a photograph but a copy of a painting.
But if you have a recreation, you lost almost all elements of Photography, such as DOF, focus, lighting and so on, I also would not call this image as a photograph rather than a graphic design…

Xiao Cai,

Actually there is a famous photographer Hiroshi Sugimoto who photographs abstract sculpture and wax models of people. His prints are shown in galleries around the world. I consider his work photography. His works are are not products of "recreation".

 

Phineas Tarbolde,

You are right. It should be "creation", not "recreation".

Artists are more emphasizing “creation”. (“Recreation” looks like coping someone else – in my opinion)

I really don't care one way or another, and perhaps I'm wrong...but it doesn't look like a real photograph to me. Or at least, parts of it look like they were produced in a 3d modelling program. It definately has been photoshopped...(1) 3/4 of the way up on the right side, the edge of the paper is not well photoshopped and it's slightly transparent. (2) DOF goes from sharp to blurry to sharp (vertically), which is an impossibility in the real world, (3) each marble has hotspots from light sources in different areas of their spheres, (4) shadows are landing differently from one paper to another, (5) marbles are not reflecting the colors of their surroundings correctly.
Or, maybe I'm totally wrong and this is a masterful creation of impossibilities. Perhaps this can be categorized as mixed media with some elements of photography. I'll let the creator explain. Either way, his portflio is unique and interesting. Congrats.

I'm the photographer of this image and feel like I should break my silence and explain a few things...this is an image of construction paper and marbles that I arranged over a light source(s)....this image was really an experiment for me...I had found that some of my earlier work did not have the depth of field that I wanted.. so I decided that I would try to focus on two parts of the still life during two exposures and then composite them in photoshop to get greater depth of field...I must admit that I had some friends over that night that I was working on this and got into a little bit of a hurry into posting it on photo.net....believe me when I say if I had known it was going to be chosen for photo of the week I would have been a little more precise...it's quite embarrassing for me...but I feel like photography has as much of a learning curve as any other artistic medium... and I will learn from this image....Some of you have speculated about different light sources,3D modeling programs and impossibilities of reflections and trickery....I can honestly say that this is pretty much how the still life looked as I shot it....... except for the two shots focused differently..(would like suggestions on how to do that properly!)....And lastly I defend this as true photography as much any other still life set up in the studio...only instead of a vase of flowers and some fruit... I used paper and marbles...after all any photograph ever taken really just captures something that a man has made or nature has made or both.

I stand corrected about the 3d modelling possibility. Barry, thanks for explaining. As with so many other Photo of the Week images, some of the better ones are those that are diffult to immediately discern how it was done. The fact that the image illicits scrutiny is a good thing, in my opinion. I'm still baffled by some of your hovering marble photos if they really are not 3d models...unless of course the strings/etc supporting them were also photoshopped out. Congrats again.

Barry,
Thank you for your explanation.
To decide if it is a “true” photography or not, not depends on way (or tools) you use, it depends on what you are emphasizing, Are you emphasizing “design” or Are you emphasizing “photography”? or what do you want to achieve? If your photography looks like a 3D program generated, probably that is a big problem…

Crisp and elegant with great tones and lighting. Top work!

Fantastic...great image...the composition is very good & perfectly balanced.

this is an absolutely stunning combination of lighting shape and colour! if you have a transparent glass surface; place ondulating coloured strips of textured paper on a standing position and some marbles sitting against the paper walls with some directeed suave light from abouve....
invert the image et voi la!!
it is quite simple and with a correct exposure ...
I love the almost palpable texture of the paper...and the lighting of course!
Pedro

Quite apart from the challenge of photographing this, there is quite an art to arranging the subject in an aesthetically pleasing way, and you've done a great job. I like the choice of colours too. Its basic forms and pure colour lend it a rather early 20th century feel, somewhat reminiscent of Malevich's suprematism (though his shapes were usually on a white background), or Rodchenko.

 

Barry,

As a trained realist painter and full time working photographer all I can say is "Fantastic". The instant I saw it I liked it. I quickly decided that it was "Art" and my message to you is "Don't listen to the critics".

I'm not an abstract artist but this "just works" on so many levels. It made an immediate and forceful impression on me (the real test of appeal); it drew me in with the rich color, the sensuality of the curves, the interesting and improbable lighting, and the beauty.

Regarding the focus, one thing some photographers don't understand the way painters do is "focal point" (and I don't mean as in the eye of a portrait, foreground object in a landscape, etc. Some of the areas may be softer than others, but that's OK with me. It still works. If everything in an image is sharp, then nothing is sharp. I too was a little perplexed at the lighting; I didn't see how it could be a photograph. I kept looking to see if it was an illustration. I couldn't tell and that makes it all the better!

I've over analyzed it already. I want to enjoy it like any other piece of art that is pleasing to look at it. Sit back, enjoy, feel. Wonderful....

Congratulations!!!!!!!

 

Really good photo, and advance photography, seting lighting skill. I look at it for long time still cannot figure out how to make this picture. Great Job

I love when an artist's walks the ambiguous line between reality and abstraction, as Barry clearly (and brilliantly) does here !

Well, I like it a lot and more and more after studying it a couple times. I think it is because it has balance and yet movement and energy. And a very pleasing color choice of gentle contrasts and some rich shapes that painters have used over the years, the flowing ribbons I mean. It is the kind of abstract still life that I admire. The fact that it was a photograph and perhaps a composite does not detract for me and why should it- I look and don't dig that deep most days. I can admire its careful blend. I can think of it like a pleasing and not knock your socks off cocktail of liqueurs. A blend that goes down easily. It would certainly catch my attention in any batch of images. It is unpretentious and graceful as an abstraction. Not everyone is good at this type of thing. And it is tougher than one might imagine. It is a pattern not a punchy pattern, but a nice pattern. My salute, Barry. You will get lots of feedback for such image and I know it will be interesting. Also a little gold cup icon you have earned for being the kernel of a discussion, sir.

Sorry, not photography for me.

Moderator note: Discussion of if the image is a photo or not a photo is not a discussion we should be having on the Photo of the Week. Please see the link at the top of the thread for the rules to posting in the Photo of the Week forum. All comments need to be a critique of the image that has been chosen for discussion. Thanks.

Barry,
Dude. I like the grooves of the paper and the marbles...reminds me of the male and female forms...she is the path (paper) and he is the Form (marble) leading into her. Also the ebbs and flow of the ocean(paper) and the moon (marble) :Am I reading too much into this image? I am a poet who sometimes,likes to take pictures and some images like this one and turn them into words...the colors remind me of the female form and childbirth,or conception...okay enough of that! What can I say the picture moves me. :)

I love an image such as this where a lot of thought has gone into the design....the use of textures, shadow and light...and depth...have all rendered a most unique compositon......amazing what one can do when they just take the time to 'think about their desired end result'.....amazing image...congrats...Gail

I am impressed. good stuff

I can stare at this picture for hours

I am impressed by your work so far, your style, the shapes and colors, light and shadows found in your compositions. Regards Dan.