The people in this photo gives an awe-inspiring perspective on just how big St. Peter's Cathedral is. This image is from my series on <a href=http://www.danheller.com/rome.html<Rome</a<.

Another two people in the frame, further away, yet larger? ....or am I seeing things?

Somehow, I think we are going to have an interesting week...:-)

Well.... it makes for a shocking picture.... at first sight.

I must add that I don't mean any disrespect for Dan, who IMO is a truly fine photographer.

Everyone seems to be upset about 'manipulation' in this photo. But film photographers have done this kind of thing for years.

 

Who's to say the manipulation here was digital? Maybe the photographer put a couple of small models of people in the scene, so the whole thing was done in-camera like the purists demand. Would that be 'cheating', or would it be 'creative use of illusion'? Why would the technique used make any difference to your enjoyment of the image?

This image has challenged me in a rather unfortunate way...

 

As anyone can see, I long ago expressed my admiration for this image. However, I, and others, pointedly asked if any manipulation had ocurred, to which no response was forthcoming. Before I continue, let me clearly state that I fall into the "purist" camp of photographers. I prefer to enjoy "photographs" that have not been digitally altered (my definition of altered being very similar to the definition adopted by photo.net). However, though I choose not to render any myself, I also enjoy the artistic creations of some of the manipulators as well (although many such efforts are simply garish) - but I would expect any manipulation to be fully disclosed. Given the title of this image, and the pointed questions asked by the Photo.net community, I would certainly expect more complete disclosure than simply the default "Manipulated? Yes or Unknown" tab to be ticked... ESPECIALLY from a photographer as skilled as Dan who has likely benefitted financially from the exposure Photo.net has given to his work.

 

One might ask why I feel challenged by this turn of events? Why don't I just dump all over Dan and be done with it? Well, the answer lies in the fact that I have long counted Dan as one of my five favourite photographers at PN. He has produced images which have had a lasting and profound impact upon me, and I feel cheated and saddened that I might now have to re-evaluate these images as well as my reactions to them.

 

Dan, if you are aware of the hubbub brewing here, please quell the storm. Please tell us that the image is indeed genuine, that the perspective has given way to some rather odd illusions. I want to believe in the majesty of this photo, as well as the power of your other photos as well. But, as I have said, I am challenged to do so.

Its a nice photo but its not architecturally correct and this bugs me but I could live with it. The Digital manipulation is what really bugs me. Makes me wonder about the rest of the portfolio. I imagine a skilled photographer could look at the PRINT and tell its been faked especially commercial photographers who understand light very well and how exactly those shadows will fall and their intensity, placement etc.

 

Trying to pass off what would otherwise be a semi STAGED photograph by digital manipulation is ridiculous. No staging just Photoshop to the extreme. If you tried to submit this as a journalist it would be rejected because of the manipulation although it might win as a great photo without the manipulation ( ever thought of just taking a PHOTOGRAPH? )

 

If Mr Heller actually charges 1400 dollars for a 35mm print than more power to him. No gallery would ever be able to move it but more power to self marketing thru the internet. If it doesnt bug the buyer than its fine as long as they are aware of the manipulation.

Reminds me of another "fine photographer" (famous nature photog) who added packs of water buffalo (or something) using PS to a group of buffalo to make it look like a huge, gigantic herd that stretched across the horizon. Anyone remember who that was?

Shall we talk about the ray of light as well, before starting the philosophical discourse...?

Apparentely the photographer Dan Heller himself wrote as caption for his image:

 

"The people in this photo gives an awe-inspiring perspective on just how big St. Peter's Cathedral is."

 

I would call this deception and cheating if it should be true that he manipulated the size of the people in his picture. And to me it clearly looks like that. As well he could have placed two ants there: "The ants in this photo give an awe-inspiring perspective on just how small St. Peter's Cathedral is."

 

Emphasizing that one should use the people in the picture as a scale to estimate the size of the cathedral is like actively lying (or at least treating the rest of us like idiots).

Very interesting discussion indeed, I shall stay tune :)

 

With due respect, Dan is the first photographer whoes website i had bookbmarked for personal reference. He travels extensively keeping a valuable archive of images for beginners in photography.

 

To state my view for this image, setting aside PS manipulation, i like it a lot, both composition & lighting. I believe what will ensue in subsequent discussion is pure ethnic matter .. I do care :)

I think the debate about the merits of this image earning potw should be framed around the reason given for awarding it potw - "The people in this photo gives an awe-inspiring perspective on just how big St. Peter's Cathedral is. " In this context the fact that it is a PS job makes it undeserving for the reason stated by the elves. The people give an awe-inspiring perspective but they're fake. I think PSing in some people at regular scale is dubious if you're going to call it a photograph and not a photo-illustration. Making them smaller to accentuate the scale makes it strictly a photo-illustration IMO. That aside it is a striking image. I find the composition to be cramped on the left side. The wide-angle distortion I think adds the sense of scale. It's a great exposure for a difficult subject. I'm currently in Peru and have pretty much given up trying to get decent exposures in the cathedrals here.

Check out the size of the pulpit and what looks like a lamp, on the left, compared to

the size of the people. Scale is way off. I mean it just looks fake. This is a photo of the

elusive 'Borrowers' ... little people who take a single sock and leave you with only

one. Cool dude! I knew they existed! I'm willing to stand corrected.

Nice shot tho'

 

G

Sorry, I didn´t catch the fact that the statement in quotes was from the artist, not the elves. In that case it seems like a very misleading statement. I think even people that add stuff in photoshop can be great photographers to begin with, and can create strong images with or without enhancement. I say do whatever you want, art is open creative process, just be honest and straightforward in telling the world what it is you're showing them. RE: $1,400 prints. Lame! People are dying by the millions from AIDS and starvation in Africa. Give your money to them instead you rich art-buying people! And to think I travel all over the western hemisphere doing photography for conservation groups for free...

Alas, the saga grows sadder by the moment...

 

Upon revisiting Dan's PN portfolio, I pulled up an image of lightening over San Francisco where Dan clearly admits to manipulating the image. Specifically, he states:

 

"Canon EOS A2, Velvia, Canon EF 28.135 @28mm f3.5 Warming Polarizer. People often ask if I digitally manipulate images. What they really want to know is whether they're being lied to: Was the lightning really over the Golden Gate Bridge, or did I put it there? Well, in this case, I put it there. I got the lightning from a photo I took of a storm in Monument Valley. For the most part, when people ask me whether I digitally manipulate my photos, this is what they mean, which I rarely do. That doesn't mean it isn't fun. If digital manipulation offends you, you haven't tried it enough. For a complete discussion on this, go here."

 

This caption leads me to believe that Dan likes to bend the truth when it comes to his images. Even if he didn't, for me it would have been perfectly ok if the sort of disclosure cited above was provided alongside the POW image we now have before us. But it wasn't. Draw your own conclusions.

Very impressive at first sight, the 'divine' ray of light coming from outside, the monumental arch... everything looks so big here...

Then looking at details, I have a little problem with the scale. The 2 people look far too small (were they added too?), especially to the compared to the pulpit and compared to the shadows of 'roughly cleaned-up ghosts-visitors'...!!

Talking about elevation, ray of light, sacred place... and in order to compare in a similar although humbler evocation, look at this neglected image (5 ratings 3 comments 342 views)

To summarize this picture works well IMO at thumbnail size but problem arises if enlarged.

No-manipulation...For your enjoyment...regards, m.

PS-ing aside, well cropped/framed to get enough of the word 'christ' in the corner. almost as if it was self-titled.

When I blow this up, I can see a lot of digital artifacts around the figures, but I don't know if this would be consistent with planting the images there. The same kinds of artifacts are visible around his web address, which has clearly been added on. On the other hand, some kinds of artifacts are visible in other parts of the picture, such as the inscriptions at upper right. The "figures" that someone circled in the distance seem to vanish into thin air when the image is blown up, and the "podium" might be a large cabinet of some sort.

 

It seems better to suspend judgment until Dan tells us just what he did and did not do to the photo. Overall, I have to say that it is an inspiring and amazing photo.

When Dan Heller uploaded this image the "unminipulated box" wasn't available. It was added much later. So, he didn't "clearly" post this as being manipulated. Hopefully, Dan doesn't get a bad rap for playing with this image if he did add those people in.

 

Any of Dan's photos could win a POW. The playing with light theme is well represented by this photo and the light and surroundings are well captured.

While I hope Mr. Heller does return to photo.net to post in this thread, I think he's outlined his views on manipulation pretty well on his own site:

http://www.danheller.com/faq-manipulation.html

Dan is a great photographer but as to manipulation - well he has an entire article about sticking a full moon in a picture, NOT at the same time as the landscape that goes with it. The main benefit is to get the moon properly exposed and potentially larger than it really was. You know how we all love that huge, unbelieveable moon size. Is it wrong or right? Its not a photoshpo trick but it is manipulative.

Check it out, I learned a lot from this guy, his whole sight is worth more than a look. One upload from hige also follows:

 

http://www.danheller.com/moon.html

Oooops, I forgot. Where's the reflection from such a huge moon?

The elf above refers to this as an "oft photographed location". If this is the case, could someone post another shot that includes people so that we can see if the size of the people in this image is correct? I Googled St. Peter's Cathedral, but couldn't come up with any images that provided a clear-cut comparison. What I did find, however, suggests that the scale here may be correct.

Manipulation is not a real issue for me in that case as I explained above but to answer Rhett Jackson question... I checked after wards and I found this picture of St Peter interior As you can see, people size has been divided at least by 2.