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<.

I'm just disappointed.

If the people were children dressed as adults, and if we were

permitted to see them in a way that we could discover their age upon

closer inspection, then I would really enjoy this because the point

could be made without lying. The issue is respect for the viewer, not

how it was done.

 

But children dressed as adults is also a deception, so isn't it then

about the odds on the trickery being discovered? Could the

photographer not agrue that of course the perspective is such that

this could never be real, and you can obviously figure that out for

yourself? We get into trouble sometimes by ascribing motives to a

photographer's presentation. Art Wolf was certainly taken to task

with his famous book on 'Migrations' where he cloned large herds to

make them even larger. Evene though his technique was included in

fine print, too many people felt his intention was to put one over on

us.

 

Trust your heart in these matters. When you figure out the ruse, or

have been told be someone else, how do you feel? Delighted at the

cleverness . . . or disrespected? .

This picture truly provides me with sufficient stimlation to invoke goosebumps, but this feeling comes from the fact that i have been to St. Peter's a handful of times. To all those who read this, i promise you the scale of the people in this picture are so far off that it takes away from the magic of St. Peter's, in my opinion, and i must ask why manipulate the scale of something already so grand and amazing? I went back to my pictures of the exact area of St. Peter's, the far-left wing area, and did some measuring. The older lady i have in one of my pics is probably about 5'3" or so and she is approximately 3.2 times the size of the couple in the picture. I just hate the thought that someone that has never been to St. peter's would possibly be disappointed, in any way, due to the ridiculous mis-scaling of this picture. Great work...but please let everrone know how off-scale it is.

That a badly-manipulated picture by a great photographer should be showcased like this. Was the incorrect sizing of the figures an accidental oversight? Was it laziness? Was it an overdone attempt to exaggerate the size of the edifice? If anyone reading this thread has paid $1400 for this picture, or even a fraction of that, they will be feeling pretty sick. It will be hard to suppress thoughts of "Honey I shrunk the kids" every time they look at it!

Many people are calling this "fake" or "false" and in his representation of it through its caption it is. But that doesn't make the image itself fake. What is fake in photography? People are deciding because they don't like what has been done in this photograph it doesn't count, it isn't a real photo. That's rediculous. It is a manipulated photo like a huge percentage of photos on this site. I find it pleasing to look at and worthy of further inspection. I wish more photos did that for me.

 

That said, the caption of this photo ruins it for me because it is a blatant misrepresentation of what is. If this had a more proper caption/title such as "Bigger than Life" or something that conveyed the fact it was manipulated then I'd have no problem with it.

That's not a cathedral - this is a cathedral...

Yep, here we are talking about manipulation again. That's fine, I guess; it's an ongoing topic. I think Travis is overstating the case to suggest that lens and film choices are equivalent to photoshop people-shrinking in creating manipulations. Nonetheless, as with any photographic tricks, the real issues are the use of the image and how it is presented. Here, Dan's statement that this shows the perspective of the place is pushing the line a little. It does certainly suggest the experience of being there, but it's not true perspective (even "true" exaggerated wide-angle perspective). Nonetheless, the underlying image is beautiful, with great light and detail. Enjoy.

I can't say I'm terribly impressed with this choice for POW. I enjoy Dan's work a lot, but I think this is one of his weaker images. This just doesn't convey the creativity and technical talant expressed by his other work. I've seen many similar - better - images of light rays in St. Peter's that are better composed. And while I usually appreciate this photographer's manipulations, this one strikes me as a bit hokey - and unnecessary. St. Peter's is big enough that you don't need these kind of alterations to convey the feeling of it.

Sorry, forgot to make an addendem to the above comment - to see the alteration, compare the relative size of the people to the floor mosaic in Dan's shot and the one I posted - this relationship would not change based on the lens used or angle the shot was taken from.

Awesome website with super nice photos!

Hope to get superb pictures from all around the world someday like these...

The people really are that small.

Interesting discussion about photo-manipulation. Were we a bunch of photo-journalists, this discussion would have ended in 5 seconds with a dismissal of Dan and all other such manipulators (sounds like a bad word) from PN with instructions "don't come back again!!"

 

I believe that artistically-minded folk can manipulate all they want, so long as they don't pawn their work off as documentary. Dan's comments on this photo specifically pointing out the relative dimensions between people and cathedral step over that line of deception.

 

So, new to PN, I looked at well-known "Star-trails at Arrow Glacier". I have good reason to believe that it too is a fake!!

 

Here is what Dan states:

 

"Lastly, note the southern star just above the horizon. That's not visible in the northern hemisphere. It points due south, the same way our Northern Star points due north. It's close to the horizon because Kilimanjaro is 3-degree south of the equator. If we were further south, it'd be higher in the sky."

 

The sad truth is that THERE IS NO SOUTHERN STAR! The northern star results from a coincidental line up between some random star and the central axis around which our earth spins (drive a big stake through the earth from geographic pole to pole... let it extend out forever in both directions... and voila: in the north it intersects with a star. Unfortunately, in the south, it intersects with deep and very dark space! No pivoting southern star. No star around which all others revolve.

 

Therefore, I can only believe one of two things about that photo. Either I need to go back to my text books to better understand the southern hemisphere in relation to the earth's spin, or Dan placed the Northern star revolution over an African scene.

 

I am not an astronomer (rather, tropical biologist) but I'll bet anyone an ice cream cone that Dan has tread this thin line (stepped over it in my book) more than once.

 

-the ever snooping around Peter Sherman

Peter, allow me to introduce Beta Hydri which is often referred to as the "Southern Star". While it isn't at true south (it is 12 degrees off), it is the most easily seen star closest in directional proximity to the south pole. Check out this site for more information: http://www.solstation.com/stars/bethydri.htm

The image you refer to is/was one of my favorites on this site. When

this POW discussion got going, I thought, "Well, even though the night

sky image is real, my enjoyment of it has been compromised because I

can't escape the negative association. After all, how do I really

know for certain now that the night sky image is true unless I was

there. That's what I want photography to do for me. Perspective and

other various kinds of reasonable stretching aside, I want to not be

disappointed by the comparison between the image and being there in

person.

 

I wonder how many of you realize that Dan's Web site is the largest of

it's kind on the internet.

 

But the people that disappoint me the most are the ones who just love

unreal images to the point where they've become blase about real

captures because they're not 'original' enough to impress them. It's

sad that the real world is no longer worth looking at in print form or

capturing and presenting to others. . . . .

hi tony, GREAT! Someone who can determine whether the shot is faked or if I need to return to the texts (and buy you an ice cream). If you get a second, take a look at the African shot Dan posts and let us know what you think. It seems that there truly is a central star in his shot around which all else pivots. The 12 degrees off mark that you cite (great info) would reveal a dark spot in the pivot point, with the 'southern star' revolving cloeset around that point. His photo shows a pivotal star. I am not asserting my correctness here at all... but I have become curious.

 

So, PN astronomers out there... is Dan's pawning off manipulation as documentary a chronic disease or something that just emerges periodically between bouts of remission?

 

Tony, if I owe you an ice cream... let me know the flavor you want.

 

pete

Maybe I shouldn't have jumped on your bandwagon quite so quickly.

 

http://apod.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030307.htm

The people...so tiny, they look like...elves

 

Without wanting to imply anything at all about the stars pix, here is a simple observation I made...

Dan wrote:

"The reddish color just above the horizon, fading to blue higher up, is caused by the red dust kicked up from the ground below. Tanzania didn't have a lot of rain this season, and the last wet season was also particularly dry. As a result, the dryness caused a lot of the red dirt to fly everywhere."

I am by no means a nature and landscape specialist, to say the least, but... This stars picture was exposed during 3 and a half hours WITH THE FLUORESCENT LIGHT CORRECTION FILTER (which filter is magenta), says Dan. Well, the magenta filter bearely managed to compensate SOME of the green cast, as he explains, but it seems pretty logical to me, that it would explain the magenta cast we can observe on this image, and which appears of course in all the areas not affected by the fluorescent light.

My explanation for the colors in this stars pix therefore differs from Dan's. Just ask yourself whether FLYING dust (as he indicates) would ever print on film during a 3 hours and a half exposure. Impossible, isn't it ?

Lastly, I can't comprehend how the tents aren't blown. Do you know any light burning for 3.5 hours in a tent that would not oner-expose the tent BEFORE the stars even appear. YET, there is still a possible explanation on that part: the people in the tents would have offed the lights at some point, and Dan would have been lucky that they all do so just at the right time.

Another interesting study case... eventhough all I can use here is simple exposure logic... so I'm not too sure what to think.

I don't really at all understand all the fuss that's being made here, and sorry Tony D., but I went to this guy's webside and didn't find one single image that got me excited. I didn't see them all, it's just too much of nothing, but I saw at least a hundred or so. It's the typical story of being there doesn't mean making good pictures. Everybody that visits Benin and has a decent camera and a good eye and some photograpohic experience makes Dan Heller's kind of Unicef calender like pictures. Not bad, not good, just was there and walked around for a day kind of stuff. Nothing against it, I do it all the time myself, but not in a million years I would ask one penny for one of them. Just show them to the wifey and friends who, poor devils, had to stay home while I was away on calendar business. About the obvious manipulation of this, he couldn't declare it with the button manipulated/unmanipulated, so that speaks for him, but the title kills him just two seconds later...I guess he's laughing his sorry behind off by reading all these critics of people who feel really like being cheated. He just isn't worth the fuss, it's the elves I'm worried about, but maybe they're laughing their sorry butts off as well. Have a nice week y'all, and hope it get's better next monday. And this Burgess dude hasn't even entered the discussion yet, O wowwah, another server for photo.net I guess!!!!!!!!! :-)

well, good points by marc; carl i could not pick up your link.

 

some notes: the southern star is really called the "south circumpolar star" precisely because it is not at the polar point. The north star is currently polaris, but was alpha draconis in the past and is slated to be vega in the future, then respectfully back to the namesake polaris. I could find no serious reference to the 'southern star' and beta hydris stakes its claim as the closest (within 13 degrees) to the polar point but i could not find internet references to its pivotal importance for navigation or astronomy.

 

Another issue from the emerging forensics team on that star shot come this time from the perspective of a long-time camper:

 

first, what are the chances that the entire camp got up to pee/crap in the cold night as each tent is lit evenly? Experienced campers take care of business before bedding down so as not to loose heat. then, if they are peeing etc., why all the excessive flashlight use in the tents.... and few flashlight trails outside? On a moonless night, I would do exactly the opposite. Especially when the light used in the tent would destroy temporarily my night vision outside. Sure, maybe we can explain these curiousities... but, to me, the lovely slopes of kili are smelling increasingly fishy.

 

You see, beyond the pariticular shots, there are two main points here:

1. when one manipulates one shot and doesn't fess up (in fact actually uses a deceptive title)... one loses all credibility. we all feel duped by the POW selection because of Dan's own deceptive titling. Now we are dissecting skepticallyhis other work. To all you beginning photographers out there, keep it clean and unashamedly explain your images. In this electronic day and age, credibility can make the difference between selling and not selling one's photos. This POW's poor example may allow many of us to mature a great deal.

 

2. Carl's astute point of creating imagery of supernatural aesthetics that may allow some people to become ho-hum about nature itself is essential. As one devoted to conservation (i am a professor of ecology at U. Arizona), this societal loss of our connection to the grit and glory of the environment has very real and damaging impact on our interest in conserving it.

 

So, in summary, who besides Dan knows if the Kili shot is authentic? That's not super important. What is, is this: Once deceived, always suspicious.... forever disappointed. Had Dan come clean on the POW, we could have all relaxed.

Something didn't work right with my enclosed pic I guess, so here's the link to my "two men, taken from the roof of the cathedral, Milano, Italy": Now that's a BIG one folks!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=180710&size=lg

Peter,

 

I've looked at the photo and I can't honestly make a determination. I think you may have a good point. I was simply pointing out that there is such a thing as a "southern star" even though by definition it isn't quite the same as the "Northern Star".

This was one of my favourite pictures. WAS. Once you realize the manipulation the whole admiration for the pic goes down the drain, along with it the admiration and respect for Dan's other work and for himself. What a pity.

travis wrote:

 

when you shoot people in b/w, you are manipulating and changing the WHOLE SCENE. You change the CONTENT as well because no humans I have seen in real life are in BLACK AND WHITE.

That is ok? and this is not?

 

travis,

 

When shooting people in bw you are not changing the CONTENT. The content remains the people and everything else that' s in the frame. By using bw film, you are not changing the SCENE either. You would change the scene if, for instance, you told your models to start interacting, or otherwise changing the message of your photograph. I think you missed my point as far as using filters (physical or PS) and bw film vs. dramatic PS tricks. So, again: have you seen people whonaturally decrease their size ONLY when entering into a Cathedral?

 

nikos wrote:

 

The whole point of photography is to portray a vision of our world that is different to the experience delivered by our eyes, but more similar to the perceptive experience that results when biological vision gets mixed with emotions and thought-processes.

 

nikos,

 

I don't know whether you borrowed this from a book or it's original, but regardless, I can't agree with it. 1. a photo doesn't neccessarily have to express any emotions or thoughts. 2. The "whole point of photography" is a lot more diverse than that. Though in the majority of cases it's good to show our world from a different, unusual perspective, in many other situation the goal is capturing, documenting the reality exactly the way you would see with your own eyes.

 

other digital confidence trickters, ;-)

 

Check out Alan Chen's post, he gives a rough, but short and clear definition of the difference between photographer and PS artist.

 

My definitions are *Photographer* and *Designer*. This week's photo is a good example of the work of this 2 in 1 image. Without either, the photo wouldn't have the impact (or there would be no photo..).

What I did have problem with was that 1) the POW is not a great photo with some PS enhancements but a great photo unneccessarily manipulated. 2) the impact of the photo partially (greatly) originates from the "trick" which I'm excited to see on graphic designers' sites but not on photo.net's opening page.

 

M~

THOUGHT #1 - How is someone selling prints for $1,400 of a photograph taken with consumer gear (Canon A2 and 28-135)?

THOUGHT #2 - Maybe the reason I wouldn't call this a photograph (as opposed to a photo-composite or photo-illustration) is that the word photograph is singular, not plural, and by it's very nature suggests something of singularity - an image captured at once.

THOUGHT #3 - This would have been a much better photo if the composition where shifted slightly to the right and the colors a bit punchier. Seems a bit dull for Velvia, although maybe just the scan.

THOUGHT #4 - For those criticizing Dan's work as calendar-like, I wouldn't knock it until you can do it too. Creating that type of image, while not my style or taste, certainly isn't easy, and this photographer's work, manipulated or not, is well-composed, with good light, colors, and other qualtities. The PS work though is over the top, and while seemingly well-executed on the surface, could be much more effective if scaled back a bit.

THOUGHT #5 - The ghosted big people are pretty easy to see. Cathedrals are a cliche anyway and there's so much other original work on photo.net