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<.

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

 

 

What does gear have to do with it? Push the idea even more. Why would anybody buy an image created with a 35mm camera? It's not the gear. It's the final image. Use a disposable if it gets the look you want. Gear not= good.

My take on this is that I guess it is a matter of degrees. We were duped by his title. What have we lost by this? Probably not much. Maybe some people feel bad about having given the photographs high ratings under false pretenses, but hey, it's no big loss. But is there a point when it does begin to matter? This is why I brought up the $1400 issue right at the beginning of the thread. Does it matter that he doesn't indicate clearly on the selling page that the image that you are about to shell out a very thick wad of money for isn't a real photo, but a digitally manipulated image? To those people that are saying "who cares if it is manipulated, it's a great image!" would you be quite so nonchalant about it had you found out about the manipulation after you had bought it?

Therefore there has to be a line where ethics really is important in photography, as in all art. In can be so easy to pull the wool over the sheep's eyes, especially in these days of Photoshop, and thus I think that there is all the more reason to be upfront about such things.

And so no, we didn't lose anything by believing on this site that Dan was presenting us with a real, unmanipulated image of St Peters, as he claims to in his title, but a photographer that doesn't recognise that in photography, as in everything else, there is a certain code of ethics that we are expected to live by and follow doesn't measure very highly in my eyes.

This week's theme is "playing with light"....

 

Unfortunately, it seems to have turned into "playing with people".

What makes me think that something is amiss in this picture is the fact

that the camera height above the ground would have to be

much higher than the people's heads. Yet, as far as I remember, there is

nowhere in St Peter where such an elevated viewpoint could be found. For reference, here is another picture

of the interior of St Peter. When I was there, the feeling of size

was overwhelming, yet I found it difficult to convey that feeling in

photographs.

The interior taken from near where the photo in question was shot...does this

clarify things at all?

I think in all fairness to Mr Heller, it should be stated that he never claimed this photo was unmanipulated. On the contrary, he stated it was manipulated, right up front.

 

I think there is atmosphere that exists here that people want to believe that photos which clearly state they are manipulated are not manipulated. This problem is compounded when an image such as this one with several problems is chosen as POW. People are comparing manipulated images to unmanipulated photos and thinking "Wow, I wish I could have gotten that shot" rather than "I wish I had done that in Photoshop." The solution is to seperate the two.

 

Not that it matters since the image is clearly a manipulation but the reason I mentioned the light is because the window should be the same intensity as the one directly above it, or vice versa, same as in every other picture of St Peter's I've ever seen. This would obviously destroy the single shaft of light that makes this picture. I honestly don't think St Peters has windows shades or anyone tall enough to open and close them. But anything is possible. It is possible that the photogragher was lucky enough to happen upon this sight, upper shades drawn, just as we see it here(minus the tiny people, of course). But after visiting Mr Hellers site I don't believe he relies on luck to produce good images. Here's the advise he gives:

 

"You just want your photos to come out like those you see in a book, or on the internet, or on a computer screen. The thing to realize is that those photos didn't just pop out of the camera like that. "Post-processing" after an image was taken may have made it look different than how it was shot on film.You may need to alter your perceptions about what you can accomplish if you were to attempt the exact same shot. Manipulating images is not inherently a "bad" thing."

 

Actually he has a lot to say on digital manipulation and he does the PS thing very well, well most of the time. By far this isn't his best work, but I do like the shaft here. It's well done. The only thing I would change in this picture is: lose the upper window, lose the podium, lose the ghosts and scale the floor tiles to the people. Then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Before adding my opinion on digital manipulation and the real size of people in St Peter's, let me post a comment on the above mentioned idea that the smoke in the light rays is due to people smoking. "Everybody smokes in Italy"... Sorry to appear rude, but the idea of people smoking in St Peter's is just silly (incidentally, St Peter's is not in Italy). Nobody smokes in churches, either in Itay or in the Vatican, and surely nobody smokes in St Peter's. I have been there many times, and I have never seen anybody smoking. Obviously the smoke is from incense and from scores of burning candles.

Dave, the problem is not manipulation per se. Read the title.

Jeff...that is the problem sometimes with POW, the picture chosen are generally not recent and the photographer is not anymore active is the site. Dan didnt post anything (comment or pictures since 2001!!). The photographer being absent, we just turn around and around.

I dont think it is absolutely necessary to choose a picture posted within the last week but, prior to choose POW, photographer should be alerted, not for his own sake (there are moderators), but for the general interest of the discussion, and at least be active over the recent period. If it is not the case, there is a good chance for the discussion to be not, if not misleading, at least incomplete.

It is the case of this POW, same for S.Bourson, R Desmarais and few others POWs this year...

We are Wednesday and I feel this discussion is over now... so see ya Next Week!

And by the way the neglected picture I mentionned in a previous post has received tens of visitors and few ratings/comment. Thanks for Steve!

Moderator comment: Jacques -- Actually Dan was on the site this year. His records show his last visit as August 2003. The photogropher is alerted to the POW via the e-mail address in his/her portfolio. Unless the e-mail is incorrect or not updated - I'm sure he has been alerted. Last but not least....to those members commenting on "elves", Photo.net policy etc.. It is the policy of this forum to discuss the image -constructively- and -civily- reserving discussion of Photo.net policy for the Help and Feedback Forum. Edits and Deletions will be done when necessary.

Dave, where did Dan say it was manipulated upfront?

the "unknown or yes" column you mean? That means it could be manipulated? Or so there you go, Dan said it upfront. SO what's the problem?

 

great image.

. . . is the TITLE.

I think we have had enough of this discussion. It has been amply proved that a) this photo was digitally manipulated; b) not only the manipulation was not explicitly stated or discussed, other than by leaving the infamous button unchecked; c) the title was misleading, and, d) the author is no more around here in PN to answer criticism or to defend his position.

I am sorry to disagree even with the (early) comments by Jeff Davidson on this particular image; I have nothing against digital manipulation, but altering Zippy and altering St Peter's are two horses of different colors and should be tackled with quite different attitudes. I feel that he got a bit less well disposed as the discussion engrossed.

The subject of showing light itself in a photo is well worth a nice discussion; after all, photos are all made by light, and having it as the actual subject creates a somewhat self-referential loop on which I was ready to read and write pages of comment...

Concerning the caption: I dont think he made the best choice here either. On his site there is no caption which I think is better. I was taken in at first too. Now Im just trying to be objective and its getting harder and harder to look at this image and keep a straight face.

Probably going to take some heat for this post.

 

If the photo is documentary then sure editing shouldn't be done. But does that mean

all photos should be pure as the camera has seen it. All you purists on your soap

boxes no polarizing filters allowed and don't even think of shooting with IR film, and

everything should be shot with a 50mm lens to maintain proper perspective.

 

In my mind if your after a particular image there isn't any harm in editing a photo to

acheive the desired result. It is art after all.

 

The skill involved in editing photos convincingly is not trivial. I sometimes wonder if

the "purists" among us lack the editing skills and lash out in jealousy of those who

do.

The problem occurs when the maker refuses to allow the viewer

to evaluate the documentary aspects of their art. If there is none

intended, fine. If there is, then we should be able to determine

the balance.

I'd love to hear from Dan, as I believe we all would at this point.

 

I'm going to write to him and ask him to join the discussion. His email address is openly posted at his website: info@danheller.com

 

Perhaps if a few of us request that he joins the discussion, he may be able to add a different perspective to this fascinating foray into the world of digital manipulation, light, and other more controversial topics.

"Would you value the image more if he had figured out a way to use the camera to get the lighting right in a single exposure?"

In this particular case I dont believe thats possible. Also "slapped together" is somewhat of an oversimplification. I dont necessarily believe unmanipulated images are inherently better, but speaking for myself I do agree with you that I derive more personal satisfaction from the quality images I have captured on film than those I have created in Photoshop.

The problem as I see it is this, Carl: People here are rating manipulated images as though they were not manipulated. Both Photoshop and the camera are simply tools. Photoshop has the capability of producing images with more "wow" power as this POW demonstrates but photography in general covers a much wider spectrum of aesthetics. Capturing an image on film or memory card is a completely different process than getting an image from Photoshop.

Jeff,

 

Dan was emailed first thing Monday morning, as are all the POW

selections.

 

Dave,

 

The notion that PS images have more of a 'WOW' factor is not

necessarily true, and even if it was, wouldn't you agree that

staying power is far more important?

Its difficult for me to say what kind of staying power photoshopped images will have. Photoshop is relatively new in the whole scheme of things and the photoshopped images that end up having staying power may not have been created yet.

somehow I seriously doubt Dan will respond.

And now that we have had such a lively discussion on all sorts of matters, except perhaps the theme itself (playing with light), maybe you would be interested in which other pictures we considered? And in discussing their merits, their attempts at playing with light?

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006UsH

(Please answer the questions by visiting the above link and commenting in *that* thread).

As always: enjoy!

This is why I avoid the galleries here. The comments all seem to be about technique rather than anything about what it may or may not communicate. The criticism is a failure...

However, I think Nikos really hits it on the head, talks what photography is about rather than presenting technical fascism.

The photo isn't bad, but it seems cliche to me. It looks like many other photos of churches, with or without people, and doesn't make its message very strong, despite the efforts of the photographer.

Perhaps i should not disclose private mail but in cicumatnaces of PN interest, i am acting against the normal practice.

 

I did send to personal mail to info@danheller.com yesterday "captioned - controversial image" and content as "You may be interested to know that one of your images posted in Photo.net was honoured POW"

 

I've got an immediate response to the effect that he was aware. So i believe Dan was watching. In the light of this overwhelming request for a response perhaps Dan should clarify the position and clarify those queries so far posted. Otherwise it would seem lots of us were merely speaking in the air and the entire debate would become meaningless :)

Stop making sweeping statements. Critics make references to

content all the time. We've been shown an unusual amount of

uploads that show how other photographers tried to address

exactly the point he was trying to make. It was an obvious one,

unlike many other images on this site. I suggested that the point

of this image could have been made more effectively using

children dressed up as adults. Did someone else mention

dolls?

 

I've given some thought to how I could pull this off here at the

National Cathedral, but there are chairs everywhere which

provide too much of a sense of scale.