mount desert island, maine Storm on the Coastline

<<<So are you saying that if people have an emotional experience of a POW, they should leave that for the general discussions?>>>

Absolutely not! I think emotional, visual, critical, intellectual, aesthetic, technical, "academic," and other responses are all welcome and can all be helpful.

I think this is a beautiful image, from the cropping to the use of the natural lighting to the details within the subject matter. It's a very dramatic scenic that has been captured extremely well. There's just something artificial about it, perhaps too much enhancement in places, that bothers me and makes me wonder if I'm looking at a well-retouched photograph or a photographic illustration.

Storm and Stress has more to do with literature. But anyway, I see little of the storm and nothing of the stress. I also do not see the coastline. This could as well be in Bavaria. I think this picture is an example of something well done that has been overdone for effect. One thing is that it is too dark and could use some more contrast. Framing is fine, of course.

I feel this is a fairly ordinary photograph straining for extraordinary effects.

i wonder if it makes more sense to have the POW from a photographer who is still active in the community...the last two POW selections came from individuals that have been inactive for several years...i would not mind hearing from these people regarding their artwork and would hope that they are aware of their images being selected...

I am a bit surprised that there has been no discussion regarding the two figures that have been added here, one in the lower window and one in the tower. Combine this with the added rain and the dramatic interpretation and we realize that this was something different than most of Anthony's other images--more of an attempt at illustration than the documentation of a reality. I think it's great when someone tries something new, even when it isn't perfect yet--that's how one gets there. Even if not pursued further, one learns a great deal in the attempt.

Compositionally, the elements themselves are nicely placed. I do think, however, that the foreground rocks are maybe a bit too bright, causing the eyes to be pulled down too much. A few shades darker and I think there would have been better balance. I also feel that the brightening of the center rock mass creates a very linear path of the eye through the image--straight up and down--while their mass also creates a visual obstacle. This result is more of a staccato movement as we scan the image through its middle.

My own sense is that if those middle rocks had been left darker and the "path" on the left had been lightened, there would have been a better flow through the image. This would also have taken advantage of unifying the sense of movement with those stairs at the base of the building. Of course, I suppose one could interpret the central blockage of rocks as a similar divide between the viewer and the building as to the separation of the two individuals shown here. (the fact that they are facing each other suggests something much different than if they were turned away from each other or one from the other--maybe more that of obstacle than estrangement--I still feel that the image would be a bit stronger had the "path" been around the central rocks regardless.)

As to the rain, I find that I tend to, at first, validate an elements presence. Real or not real, does it make sense--is it in unity with the image. If it doesn't achieve the sense of believability, then I need to look for some other reason for its existence. If I can't find some symbolic reason for its existence, or if it is real, that the image isn't clearly about the phenomena itself, then I think an unfavorable disconnect is created. In a video or movie, one might get away with some of this sort of thing, but we can look at still images too long for the lack of detail to hold up.

<<<I am a bit surprised that there has been no discussion regarding the two figures that have been added here, one in the lower window and one in the tower.>>>

Why is that surprising?

I see the figure in the window, but I still don't see one in the tower -- only what I believe is the lens apparatus. What puzzles me is how you can tell it was added. Considering what has apparently gone on in creating this image, I suspect you're right, but how can you tell?

Regarding the foreground rocks, I agree they're a bit light, but I had attributed that to the relatively broken cloud layer that will cast varying amounts of light across the landscape, and I assumed these rocks just happened to be at the edge of a cloud and open sky (yeah, I'm really trying to stretch it to give Anthony the benefit of doubt). If this is just dodging, which I sort of assumed at the same time I was going for the natural explanation (I'm pretty good at being internally inconsistent), I agree with you that they are a bit light. Part of me likes that, while part of me doesn't and would go with the solution you've proposed. If I seem somewhat wishy-washy regarding my reaction to this photo, I'm a bit conflicted with tending to like the photo at first glance, wanting to believe that it is real, wanting to believe Anthony (despite the fact that he has said nothing except posting a photo), and trying to reconcile what I see with a closer examination as well as balancing what is possible with what is likely. Trying to make all of these judgement calls without firm proof is an aspect of digital manipulation that I like the least. It's tiring, and I might be wrong, and I simply hate being wrong in saying certain aspects of a photo are digital creations when, in fact, that turns out to not be the case.

Stephen, you might be right that there is not a figure in the top window. But the shape is very much like one--seems feminine to me. I compared this to the image that seems more "as is" in Anthony's portfolio and a similar shape is there against a red backdrop. Not sure what it actually is, might be a person and he lifted the color one to put in this image. A larger version of the image might confirm what it really is. It just reads like a woman to me and I think it adds to the illustrative character of the image--regardless of what it actually is.

The structure of the person in the lower window just looks added and then comparing it with the structure in the other shot confirms it for me at least.

(see image attached here)

This other shot also confirms that at least that one foreground rock was quite a bit lighter than the rest of those around it--maybe even a different material. But, as photographers, we have the ability to modulate tonalities to emphasize or de-emphasize elements in our images (analog or digital darkroom). We might be stuck--out of camera--with what is there but we have always had the tools to focus the viewer's attention where we want it and to guide them through the image as we intend.

Honestly, I don't care too much if an image is manipulated or not, bottom line for me is how well it works for the purpose it was made or, more personally, if it touches me in some more profound way. That takes a lot of stress off worrying about how an image was created. That doesn't mean that I don't "notice" an image is a creation--especially when it is meant to be "real"--but in such cases, noticing is the death nail anyway--at least to the image rising in status. As I believe Fred said, even if it is real, if it doesn't look like it fits, then it is generally a distraction to the success of an image. But, then, as I said above, if the image is obviously about such a phenomenon, then we view its success in a different way.

In the final analysis, though, any image can be looked at objectively, its construction, and there is often much to learn visually by paying attention to those things, regardless of any other criteria.

forgot to upload the image

The light on the rocks, real or not, doesn't particularly distract my eye. It seems just to highlight another area of the photo. It could serve as either an invitation or the pathway into the photo. My eye went first to the building and clouds, then back down to the rocks, so that light helped move my eye around the photo. It was a bit of a rhythmic punctuation mark and acted more as an afterthought than a distraction.

<<<If this is just dodging . . . I agree with you that they are a bit light.>>>

Stephen, something interesting to consider is that if the light on the rocks did distract me somewhat (or I thought it was a bit too bright) and if it were a natural function of light coming through the clouds and not at all enhanced by the photographer, I might still ask why the photographer didn't burn it a tad to tone it down. In other words, again, if it were natural, it could still be a problematic distraction (though it isn't for me) worth modulating. For me, if it were too light, it wouldn't just be too light because it was dodged, it would be too light because of how the light works with the rest of the picture.

What was "natural" at the time was also in context and there was a much larger scene than this one before the photographer, who had stuff to his left, to his right, and behind him. By isolating the part of the scene he chose to isolate and by putting the rocks in a prominent position at the leading bottom of the frame, he has placed that light on the rocks in such a position as to take on a kind of significance that is photographic more than it is "natural."

IMO, the light is transformed as it moves away from the entire scene and the larger perspective of the natural world on that day and becomes part of a photo. It can be reminiscent of the light at the scene, but it is no longer that light and no longer acts exactly as that light acted. So, if that light were this bright at the scene, it might not have had the same distracting effect you find it to have in the photo. Toning it down, or not dodging it so much, might actually more have mirrored the sense of light at the time than exactly duplicating it in an isolated and stilled moment which is a photo.

For someone like me who prefers as little digital alteration as possible, this has been a difficult idea to wrap my head around. Yet it another sense, I do it all the time. I often wait for the light to be just right, or for cloud shadows to pass by, or for clouds to move into a position I like, or for fog to reach a certain density. In all of this, I'm simply waiting for the light to be "right" on certain parts of the landscape.

Now some will argue (I predict) that it's very different to wait for Mother Nature to change the light than to do it for her in the digital darkroom. Several years ago I felt this way. Today, I'm less certain about this. If it's going to happen naturally at some time in the future, is it such a transgression against natural photography to speed things along in the digital darkroom?

I'm not at all hesitant to remove a fallen branch or a tuft of grass that is, IMO, detracting from the aesthetics that I see in front of me that I want to photograph. These elements are temporary, but I'm not willing to wait the weeks or years that may be required before they "disappear" on their own via natural actions. My removing them is a form of manipulation of what is really in front of me. In a sense, it's no different than cloning them out in a digital darkroom.

I'm just at a particular point in the continuum of opinion regarding how digital manipulation "ought" to be applied to landscapes. I'm getting to the point that John articulated: "....but in such cases, noticing is the death nail anyway...." I think I noticed some artificial darkening of Anthony's scene to make it appear more stormy, and that made the photo less appealing to my eyes. I was (and still am) less certain about whether dodging of the foreground rocks occurred, but a slight darkening of those rocks in the digital darkroom, simulating the effect of a more dense cloud above that patch of ground (something that is happening constantly), seems to me to be viable as long as it is done well, looks natural, and helps to achieve what the photographer wants. [in this case, Anthony got what he wanted. But I'm talking about someone else who might have taken this shot, got this light straight from the camera, but who wanted the effects of a denser cloud above the rocks.]

Now this contradicts things I've said in the past about the "decisive moment." Personally, if a photographer is able to be at the right place at the right time when the light in all parts of the frame perfectly expresses the feeling he or she gets from that scene, that unmanipulated photo will, for me today (leaving open the possibility of changing my mind in the future!) be one that I admire and appreciate more than the same photo that has been massaged in the digital darkroom. But I can still have an exceptionally high regard for the skills of a photographer who has composed and photographed a landscape that resonates with me and who has adjusted certain aspects of the photograph and those adjustments are unnoticed by me. But that's just me, and I can see and understand other photographers standing in one direction or the other on these thoughts. That's what diversity is all about, and evolution (as I'm experiencing) is central to diversity.

Stephen, I also think there's a difference between waiting for lighting to change and changing it in post processing. It FEELS different to me when I'm making the photo even if it doesn't necessarily LOOK different once the photo is complete. That doesn't mean I necessarily have a preference that I would universalize. In some cases, I find I like having to do less or no post work and in some cases I like doing a lot of post work for a variety of reasons. So I can't say overall that one way, for me, is better than the other way. I take it on a case by case basis. If I feel the post work has compromised something, so be it. If I feel the post work has enhanced something, whether toward a more "natural" look than what the camera captured or toward a more obviously artificial look that I may want by choice, then that's fine too. Really depends on the photo.

I understand all positions on the matter, from the most purist to the least, and it's important to respect others sense of what works for them, both as viewer and photographer. These discussions don't necessarily have to convince anyone of anything as much as they're a vehicle for us to understand other visions and methods and perhaps open ourselves up to new and challenging ways of looking and working, if something someone says or shows strikes us as provocative enough.

I was also kind of surprised that no one mentioned the figure in the window, if for no other reason than you usually talk about things that are right in front of you, don't you?

Why does the figure seem added? Because it seems unlikely that on a dark and stormy day, a figure is standing in the window, seemingly looking toward the camera, for a long enough time to be recorded as a sharp image. (OK, so maybe it wasn't really a dark and stormy day.) For a dark and stormy day, the area of the house around the window also seems brighter than it ought to.

Stephen, I see a few contradictions in those words....

But I certainly am not suggesting that one create a scene's lighting in post but rather that we can adjust what the camera records to how we saw the scene--which includes conscious and subconscious emotional response. Our eyes adjust so quickly and seamlessly to light intensities and in such a fashion that we often don't really see the extent of the differences between values. Having worked with a spot meter and the zone system for so many years, I became pretty aware of the differences between the eye and an "objective" instrument's readings in real time.

But the light our eye's see is also interpreted by our mind, which has many subjective overlays. We don't always see what is actually before us but an impression that is influenced by who we are. The camera only see's linear, mechanical relationships and interpretations of light. It can't take a photograph of what "we" see.

In any case, I realize that everyone draws their line in a different place--often in what appear contradictory spots--but the art of photography is about personal expression, the commercial use of photography is about the "need" and recording is more of a snapshot (not used pejoratively here) aesthetic. Even a straight negative or raw file, printed darker or lighter, can change an image from one mood to another. I think it is great when we can create what we envisioned for the scene and not rely on the limitations of the tool's ability to record light relationships.

John, I agree with what you have to say about light (it's a fascinating subject, and I think photographers ought to be very familiar with the nature of light with respect to a camera and to the eye/brain). If your post was meant to address any inconsistencies that you saw in my previous response, I'm afraid I've missed it. If you didn't address any of my inconsistencies, then they are still there and unknown to me. Send me a note if you like. Whenever I write something about the nature of photography, I realize I'm way out of my league with respect to many photographers on this site. I just picked up a Miranda SLR back in the early 70s and starting shooting, never as a professional. Anyone who has actually studied photography or depended on photography for their livelihood for decades likely has knowledge and opinions that are far more grounded than are mine. I've learned a lot from these discussions, and I hope that will continue.

I like it, and it's technically a very good picture, but compositionally there's just something unnatural about it that I find vaguely unnerving. Possibly the glow on the house in contrast to the darkness of the rest of the photograph. It's the photographic equivalent of a Thomas Kinkade painting.

My apologies, I misread what you said about eliminating things from the scene--physically vs digitally. Even with my misread, I didn't think those misinterpreted inconsistencies were all that significant, but it did remind me of many I do hear people express that can make you shake your head a bit. So, since I made the allegation here, I thought I should apologize here rather than in a personal note.

I don't think I was writing about inconsistencies but rather trying to address what I see as some underlying misconceptions* about what photography is and what role the camera and its recording medium plays in that process. I don't have any issue with where someone draws their own line(s) but rather when they try to impose their line(s) on others. (I have never thought that you do these things--I have always been impressed with your thought processes in this regard).

*the subject is complex, but I think that the popularity of "slide" film with amateur photographers was a major factor in the development of the "straight out of the camera" perspective we hear a lot about on these sharing sites. That medium, slide--aka chrome or transparency--film didn't allow for as much personal expression (or any for most) after the fact as compared to the negative (especially b/w pre-digital scanning), and now digital, with their extended dynamic range and the required darkroom intervention to create the final product. Success with slide film became more of a standard of what good photography, and being a good photographer, was over the years as the slide was the final product--and straight out of the camera.

John:

Would you agree that photography as a craft can have some standards by which it can be judged? If a photo of natural landscape is obviously and crudely manipulated (in digital or optical manner) would you agree that it exhibits poor craftsmanship?

Thomas, I see your question as a totally different issue and one that I started to address but I was afraid it might confuse things. In the discussion above, I am referring more to what we personally see as the permitted processes in making a photograph and the point you raise I see as more what we actually end up doing within those processes we find acceptable.

There are substantially objective criteria, the principles of art and design, for what makes an image successful regardless of what processes were employed in its making. These are what we are actually referring to when we suggest that an area is too light or too dark (value, balance, emphasis) or that an object seems pasted in (Unity or scale) etc. That doesn't mean we will always agree on these things, but it becomes more about the actual visual rather than just an argument as to how it was made. Also, the use of these criteria can explain why an over processed image isn't successful.

(I hope that is clear, probably not! There is a good, albeit intense and academic, discussion of this that can be found from this Cornell course information: http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/introlan.htm

John:
Thank you for clarifying. It makes sense. One could argue that if a process used by a photographer produces unsatisfactory results over and over again, the process itself could be deemed unsuitable, and advice could be made for other photographers not to use it, right?

John, thank you for the link, I think you have provided that to us before in this forum. I noticed that the author of the course promises:

"There are objective criteria by which we can determine whether or not a work is successful ("good"). We will be looking at these criteria later in the course."

So I read the course (is that the whole course...this page and the links?) and I found only one specific reference to these criteria:

"some form of balance can be identified in most successful compositions."

Did I miss something? JJ

Jeremy, there are many sequential pages and you have to look at the bottom (usually the bottom, but sometimes above the footer) of each page for some strange looking (little face icons for the first two) "back" "next" and "Home" buttons. They are easy to miss on several of the pages--or recognize until you do! I had the same issue the first time I found this.

Thomas, you might have a different agenda than what I am addressing here. I think most "processes" in the sense you are using the word--or I think you are--aren't successful due to over use or the lack of finesse or sophistication in their use. In some cases, we might just not prefer the results obtained with them regardless--but we only know that when they didn't work successfully--you know what I mean? But certainly, if one can't make something work for them, they should probably try something else. My guess is, however, if someone keeps using the same thing for the same results, then they don't think it isn't working! --By the way, I enjoyed looking at the work you have linked on your profile page here.

Thanks John, I found it. The author suggests 11 criteria for judging the success of a visual design but only for functional objects. Do you know of any such course/material for judging the success of photographs? Jeremy

Jeremy, I am not sure in what context she made that statement, but these are the same principles I learned--and taught--in art school with regards to things visual--I taught photography. How these things might be applied or controlled will vary between the various media but the basic principles are universal.

I honestly can't say that I know of any really good, specifically photographic resources on the subject. In an art school, these things are all taught in foundation courses rather than in any specific media--reinforced in the critique session format within classes that explore the different media. The best books I have read are basic "into to art" textbooks. Most of the "photography" books that include these things (there really aren't many that do) are not really all that good, at least from a pretty broad sampling I have done in my own research on what is out there and what should be. Some touch on them but I think the "rules" are a better sell, even though the "rules" are based on, or extracted from, these principles. Rules are quicker to learn and easy to follow and get some good results, they just don't give you much perspective or fallback when they don't work for your desired scene!

Thanks again John. I'm looking at the following page from the course:

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/media/evaluati/evaluati.htm

It says on this page:

"we will be looking at objects from the point of view of function. This means that the first thing we need to determine in each case is the real intended purpose of the object. If we are not clear about the function, we will not be able to make a sensible judgement."

Let's replace the word object with image and just clarify that "sensible judgement" means according to the author:

Employing "a set of criteria that can be used to make objective judgements about the success or failure of the visual components of functional design".

Is there general agreement that we need to know the intended purpose of an image in order to use these 11 criteria to judge its success or failure?

The reason I ask is that, in this case, if the intended purpose was to make an illustration for a children's fiction book about storms and sailing, our judgement of the success or failure of the image would have to be completely different than if the intended purpose was to make a photograph representing a real storm event at this location. If the purpose is a use in a children's book, then would'nt concerns about digital rain and fake men in windows be irrelevant to whether the image is successful or not?

But since we almost never know the intended purpose of the photographer, how is it possible to use these 11 criteria in an objective way (the earlier promise of the author that I cited a few posts ago)? JJ