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<.

Dan's contribution to this discussion would not move it significantly forward as it has grown much larger than him or any one of us. The evidence is before us and now it is time for each of us to to take home that which we will.

 

Here is what I will take home from this escapade:

 

The data are clear: The photo-illustration was created and passed off as a singular documentary-style image (as the title so clearly states). For me this is deceptive.

 

There are those photographers who manipulate their imagry for effect or aesthetics, thereby, creating works of art worthy of praise.

(I believe that some of Dan's photos are worthy of such praise as are so many others' on this amazing PN site of talented photogs!)

 

To manipulate a photograph, however, and not come clean (openly explain to the viewer as Dan has done elsewhere) is to play with the fires of the viewers' trust.

 

In the field of photojournalism, such deception is a capitol offense. In our more mixed PN realm, such behavior can be alternatively perceived as devious, unethical, harmless, creative, sloppy etc.

 

I, however, believe that deception (NOTE: NOT image manipulation BUT human-to-human deception) in photography is generally unwise. I say unwise because to alienate the viewers (en masse) is to lose one's audience. In the visual or performing arts, that generally is considered unwise. Of course, some artists intentionally provoke their audience (phillip glass, jackson pollock, maplethorpe etc..) But, let's be honest, Dan (and many of us) are not that type of artist.

 

And so, I submit that one should not deceive one's audience casually. As trivial as it might appear to some of us, it would be considered seriously by others. To loose that much control over the reactions of one's audience is just plain sloppy (unless motivated by philosophy AND intention as in the case of some reknowned controversial artists).

 

Dan was sloppy and I believe unwise in his deceptive presentation. As a result, many of us (myself included) have lost interest in his photography. That is a great shame because he has talent. But, then again do so many of you all.

 

For me, unfortunately, Dan's photography has lost it's appeal, now they are just another set of pretty images. In the world of competive photography, that may be the beginning of the end.

 

pete (am i really getting this melodramatic?) sherman

For those who want to see the light rays and scale of things, I will add some 'happy snaps' of the Vatican I took a couple of months ago. Please excuse the poor quality as they weren't intended for showing anyone, but they might help out in this discussion.

http://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0850_IMG.jpghttp://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0853_IMG.jpghttp://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0857_IMG.jpghttp://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0855_IMG.jpghttp://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0867_IMG.jpghttp://www.justsayit.co.uk/photos/photo-l-new/108-0868_IMG.jpg

Much as I despise this kind of manipulation, and suspect that even those images on Dan's site that he says are not manupulated in fact are, I'd like to defend him on one point.

 

It is mentioned earlier that in the photo with the star-trails and the glowing tents that that kind of light in the tents is unreal. This is a trick I have used, which I learned from a book by Galen Rowel. On a long exposure, run around to all the tents and pop your flash in them.

 

*That* kind of manipulation doesn't bother me at all.

Side note: For anyone looking for an artistic view of St Peters in 70mm movie format, check out Chronos by Ron Fricke (also filmed Koyaanisqatsi & Baraka). As I remember, he did a time lapse of the light crossing the floor in St Peters. I have the laserdisc, which has excellent video quality. Not sure how the transfer to DVD is.

 

Here's a site with a series of locations from the film, and one from what I believe is St Peter's.

 

http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/chronos.aspx

 

http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/slideshow.aspx?width=507&height=368&image=images/chronos/fullsize/Chronos414.jpg

 

 

Thanks, Steven, your snapshots restore a sense of human scale to this architectural masterpiece.

Firstly a clarification to all of Italy: my comment, "everyone smokes in Italy", was supposed to be ironic, i.e. a joke. I will say this: St. Peter's must be about the only place in Italy where you're not allowed to smoke (and I'm a smoker myself).

While the Italian photonettari have the excuse of language for taking things too seriously when they're expressed in English, may I say that the oft-spoken comments around these pages along the lines of "photography is all about art", "we're all artists", and "we should discuss photography as ultimately an artistic medium" are less forgiveable instances of taking ourselves, and others too seriously.

Do you know why Dan Heller (after being the Top-Rated Photographer on his site, under the old Ratings System, for several months in 2001) hasn't posted anything substantial since then? Well, I don't know either, but I'll take a wild guess (my wild guess is as good as your wild guess isn't it?).

It's probably because he's out working, travelling, having fun and making a living with his photography, while we sit here and navel-gaze about art and the Vatican tobacco ban. Sure, I was fooled too, a couple of times, by this pic, and a bit cheesed-off by the fakery (obvious when you really look). But I've gotten over it.

As to why he hasn't defended himself to the huddled masses back home at the website: would you, if you had to take time off to go down to the internet cafe from taking pictures of snorkelling in the Greek Islands, or scuba-diving off the Na Pali coast of Kauai, or rock cimbing in the Himalayas with a tasty yak's curd dinner waiting for you back at the camp?

No, I didn't think so.

If someone offered me a squillion dollars for this pic, I'd tell them it was... er... touched up a little and ask them if they still wanted to hand over the moolah. If they persisted in their offer (perhaps they didn't care whether it was faked or not either) I'd take the money and run, which is one of the ways to make money out of photography.

Honestly, if I had Dan Heller's job (from reading his website, apparently bootstrapped simply by his one-eyed determination to be successful at the profession) I mightn't have been back to Photo.Net myself: Photo.Net with its Grand Inquisitors, moral guardians, and artists-in-waiting who don't, won't or simply can't make it out there as photographers (myself, once again, included... for all of the above reasons).

The reason this pic was picked as POW was because a set of of supposedly knowledgeable elves, skilled in the techniques of photography, were fooled by the effect of the picture as a whole, and also because the other candidates for this week were pretty hopeless compared to the (apparently synthesized) grand vision of this pic (I'm guessing motives again, but I'm pretty sure that's not too far from the truth).

Dan's picture made me go to Rome (in between other places) and take a few similar (and unfaked) shots myself, trying to make something different of the standard tourist scenes. That was his value to the site as far as I was concerned: inspiration. I mean, lots of people claim to be inspired by George W. Bush, and they must know in their heart of hearts that he's lying - they just can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong in the first place (I've found admitting I've been conned is quite a liberating experience, actually - and it saves lives).

Put it this way: if ordinary tourists saw this pic and went to Rome too, to see for themselves, then it is a successful photograph (according to at least one of the definitions of "success"). Even if they came away realising it was faked (and I didn't... how could that have happened?), they still spent their money and took their chances, didn't they? They still fell for the old tourist trap of paying triple for sitting down in restaurants (once), having their passport snatched in the Metro (almost), paying big bucks for bottled water from Bangladeshi street vendors (often, and I even thanked them) and seeing things for real that were only images in their minds or postage stamp-sized thumbnails on websites, stories in dry Ancient History textbooks, or travel brochures before they became real witnesses to the incredible beauty of the place.

So it's successful photograph because it was designed to fool people into parting with their money (Rome says, "Thanks, Dan."). It's just not art... what a shame.

None of which turns the sow's ear of a title into a silk purse of High Creativity (tut, tut, Dan), but it goes go someway towards mitigating this photographer's "sin" (and it does take some skill to make a pic of the interior of St. Peters without anyone in it, even if you're only doing it so you can paste in some figures back home on the PC).

P.S. All I need now is for Dan to write in and say they were Idaho Pygmy Catholics, or breakaways from a touring class of kindergarten architecture students, and I'll really have to eat my hat, won't I?

P.P.S. The "Manipulation" checkbox wasn't in existence when this pic was first posted, years ago, so relying on that for "proof" it wasn't altered is a bit unsound.

Isn't St. Peter's a basilica and not a cathedral anyway?

Tony, i sent a mail yesterday to Dan (via his open email account published in his Web) - got a response six hours later. He was at home, admittedly celebrating this POW together with his wife :)

I'm familiar with Dan's work and his tongue-in-cheek captions. I bet he's just having fun here......

If I was the photographer, I'd be sitting at home giggling over all the effort and emotion that has gone into this rediculous unending group rant.

 

On the subject of LIGHT, remember that? Being that I am admittedly at a loss for not having tried it can someone tell me how to get the beams of light that are in this exposure. Is it dependent on the length of exposure? If not, what is it? Just wondering. I'm going to have the opportunity to take some shots involving light like this in the near future and I'd like to see what I can come up with.

i don't know about all these other folks, but I am a professional academic (something I seem to try to squeeze in to most of my snooty epigramatic retorts and critiques*)AND UNDENDING RANTING is what I do for a living!!!

Sure, we call it teaching, scholarship, whatever. So, Tony, don't take away my livlihood. As long as that paycheck shows up every two weeks... I'm a gonna rant! God Bless America for allowing someone like ME this opportunity! * i used a thesaurus

Peter Sherman, Ph.uD., MSc, BA, IRS, NRA, GOP, EPA, PUD, DUD

It appears what we have here is two worlds colliding. The world of professional photography where a shot like this is fair game for manipulation. And the world of photo.net, where we want to know how this shot was created.

 

If this image was created with the goal of making a buck or two then I have no real problem with this manipulation in that context. It's not uncommon for professional photographers to take a more mercenary approach to their work when it comes to putting food on the table. With the exception of photojournalist of course. If this image was available on a post card in the St. Peter's gift shop (they do have one don't they?) I'm sure many people would snatch it up because it would express the feelings they no doubt felt while standing in awe of this place. It may not be an accurate depiction, but it expresses the feeling of being there, and feelings sell.

 

Posting this image here is a different matter however. One would assume that the motivation for posting a portfolio here is to share your work with your colleagues, both amateur and professional. To discuss the creative and technical aspects of your work and the work of others. The caption is instructing us to believe this image, it is in effect being declared unmanipulated, and that is rather disappointing.

 

So, it's two worlds at odds. As a professional (there are a few of us hanging around Tony :-)) I understand why this image was manipulated. As a photo.net member I only wish Dan had told us.

>>can someone tell me how to get the beams of light that are in this exposure.<<

 

Point, then shoot. The beams *will* be there. The floor of St Peter's hasn't been mopped for decades just for that purpose. The little dust particles floating in the air, you know? The tough part is to get two really big dudes to pose in the far background so that your picture generates "healthy discussion." Cheers.

I don't think that Dan wants to take the witness stand. Say nothing and the cross-examination cannot proceed, and thus a certain enigma will always remain. In addition, that tack would mean that there will be no admission of wrong-doing and thus no compromise of one's professional reputation where it seems to count: with potential buyers. Of course, I could just be getting cynical in my old age, and perhaps Dan is going to wait until we have all made fools of ourselves, after which he is going to drop some great new revelation on all of us and tell us and show us that it was not doctored at all.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

I made the wrong comment.

 

The question really is "why does the photographer have to say anything?" When you get a professional critique, you sit there and listen to it. When the paper critiques your show, you don't write a column responding. The expectations here are really very strange.

It takes a bit of time for new policies to take effect. We do in fact

have a collection of fully sanctioned images that can be clicked

for discussion. See Pat's post on the other nominees earlier in

this thread. You can add your own favorites as well.

 

Bob, thank you for reminding us what a photo critique forum is

supposed to be about. People who upload their images without

any interest in discussing the whys and wherefors have missed

the point and seem to me to be on nothing more than an ego

trip.

 

Tony, I have to disagree with one of your key points. If you were

inspired by this image to go get a similar capture for yourself,

how can you not be pissed off that the capture you expected was

not possible. While you did say that the visit was still enjoyable

and that you did have the same response that Dan intended to

convey, were you not looking at this vist from the standpoint of a

photographer with a specific shot in mind? If I ever get out to

Mesa arch and find that the morning light reflecting on the

underside of the arch is green not red, I'm going to be really

ticked off at a whole boatload of people. Seriously I really need

to know if all that time I'm spending shining lights at objects

trying to balance the full moon is a waste of time. The site that

inspires me most on that genre says they're all original

transparencies. . . . but now I'll never really be sure about Dan's

African sky. That's a shame because I really wanted to get a

shot like that at some point.

To Tony Bell...In Saint Peter's you can see those beams. It's not something that just shows up on film. Heck you could see them in your own home on a sunny afternoon...Just smoke or burn incense all day, or sand your plaster walls and then open the curtains a bit and, lo, beams!

This is off topic, but since there still seems to be some uncertainty about the Arrow Glacier image, I thought that I had better leave a comment.

Dan's exposure is that of the southern sky. Also, there was a New Moon phase on the 29th of August 2000, so Dan is correct about that too.

That "south star" visible about one degree from the South Celestial Pole (SCP) is Sigma Octantis. Southern hemisphere astronomers can use it to pick out the position of the SCP, when aligning a telescope on an equatorial mount. The telescope mount's polar axis has to be aligned with the SCP, to allow long time guided exposures, i.e. without star trailing.

Hope this is OK... I normally don't check the POW threads, but when I saw Dan Heller's name on the front page, it immediately reminded me of his star trails. It is one that can be found in my favourites.

... is what advertising is all about.

If I take a picture of a machine in a factory, I make it look great, and larger and longer and more powerful and modern than it is. That's what the job is all about.

Fashion photography is about ADDING to the dress a flavor, a dream.

And I could go on and on... And if you are talking about a TOURISTIC image, you will need to find a way or another to make reality look nicer than it is.

And in that sense, I absolutely agree with Tony's last statement.

As I mentionned a thousand times already on this site the pre-requisit that a photo should be what it is not meant to be is simply silly. If you assumed this picture was ART, then more power to you, but more deception in the end as well. Not every photo is meant to be Art.

I think the strongest point made this week was that there was NO NEED to trick this image, since the real size of the place and the real scale should be enough to inspire awe. YET, can we really blame Dan if the context is a paid assignment for example ? I'd say yes ONLY IF IT WAS A JOURNALISTIC ASSIGNMENT, i.e MEANT TO REPRESENT THINGS AS THEY TRUELY ARE. But was it ?

As for posting this picture on photo.net, which is supposed to be acritique site, with this sort of title, I would tend to agree with Bob Hixon. YET, I have to say that I would understand that Dan would do it: maybe he did it precisely to find out who would notice the trick. That's the kind of critiques that Dan, a professional, may be looking for sometimes. It so happens that it fooled everybody and that Dan left PNet for ages without adding a note about the trick later. Well, that ends up with a deception.

What worries me a lot more than the deception at the end of this sad week is what follows:

1) Too much bashing ! ANALYZE, then do better ! You have never met Dan Heller. Neither have I. Where are people pontificating from ? I wanted to stay out of all this for a while, this week, and I'm glad I did, but can't believe the amount of hateful comments I've seen here. Please, who are you to judge people like that ? I have asked 2 questions this week, because from the first day I saw this shot I thought that a) the people were surprisingly small and b) the lighting was strange (but I haven't been to the Vatican). Then I tried to ANALYZE the star trail image, because it's an amazing picture, and it could be or not be manipulated. THAT is interesting to me, but I saw that nobody cared to analyze HOW the star trail image was created. Too bad, because for as long as we don't analyze very carefully a picture, we can't possibly do the same. :-)

2) The star trail picture is a masterpiece - even more so of course if it's a camera exposure (and I am not saying SINGLE exposure, Carl, because it may well be a CAMERA multi-exposure). There is SOOOOOOOO much more to learn from the star trail shot than from this Vatican picture. Especially about light and exposure - assuming it is not too heavily manipulated in PS of course.

3) Sorry, Tony, but with all due respect, I have to say this... I can understand your disappointment about the manipulation, but what I can't understand are the following 2 things:

a) That you ORIGINALLY fell so deep in love with an image like this. Yes, it looks good. But the light falling through a window in a beautiful and vast place shot with a wide angle isn't quite up to the standard of originality that you have accustomed us to.

You wrote: "The reason this pic was picked as POW was because a set of supposedly knowledgeable elves, skilled in the techniques of photography, were fooled by the effect of the picture as a whole, and also because the other candidates for this week were pretty hopeless compared to the (apparently synthesized) grand vision of this pic (I'm guessing motives again, but I'm pretty sure that's not too far from the truth)."

Well, after seeing the other images, I honestly feel that many of them were about as good - and probably more original - than this POW.But the fact you used the word "grand" in your comment is important: it tells me that "grandeur" is somehow a criterium of excellence for you, whereas it isn't necessarily so for me.

b) The second thing I don't get is how, knowing that this image was photoshopped, you changed your rating from a 6/6 to a 3/3, Tony. Here's my reasoning: if this picture was very good aesthetically, and if its aesthetics have not changed, how would it now become a 3 ? I do understand perfectly that the originality rating would drop, but why the aesthetics. Just my opinion of course, but I'd be glad to hear you reasoning about the aesthetics. Personally, I'd have rated this image an O5 and A5.5 originally, and if I had to rate it now it would still be a 5 or 6 in aesthetics, and indeed a 3 or 4 only in originality... Food for thought ? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know...

Finally, I haven't seen MUCH of Dan Heller's work so far, but I did "walk around" his website and what striked me was that there are great shots there indeed, but among soooooo many weaker ones, that I find it very difficult to understand all the enthusiasm I read about Dan's work in general. Dan is obviously a confirmed photographer, but imo, the fact that he shows so many images that are of lower quality on his site is a mistake - unless he relies mostly on sale of his photos as STOCK. If that is the case, then I guess it makes sense, though I would still want to suggest a little editing.

Just like Dan's online portfolio, it seems to be that Dan is a GOOD photographer who can do great and who also can do so-so. Basically he's a human being. :-) This tendency I've observed on PN to picture every one as either a devil, either an angel, seems to be very simplistic. It derives, imo, from the fact that most people have just not seen enough of the slide boxes of the MASTERS. I have seen them, and I can tell you with a very strong feeling that I am right, that Dan is still not a master, though the star trail image is indeed a masterpiece. If a photographer shows me 50 masterpieces in his portfolio, and doesn't show me the rest, then yes, I'll say he is indeed a master.

Ultimately I feel this photo for POW - leaving the manipulation aside - has much to do with nothing much. Good picture, not fantastic. The star trail was sooooo much more interesting...

Of course, all the above is just one person's opinion. Best regards.

Marc, I know you would be as happy as I would be to get rid of

the A/O rating criteria, but we're stuck with them for now. The

Originality of using lens, shooting angle, and composition to

make the people look as small as possible is not all that

original. Neither is the light beam. The aesthetics is not very

good either. Other uploads showed more color, for example,

and the symmetrical version was more dramatic for me. I hope

you are not saying that applying a PS trick to a photograph is, in

and of itself, 'original'.

 

The star image is an incredible PHOTOGRAPH only if it is a

single long exposure. That's because it belongs to one category

of understandable image capture on the one hand, and post

capture trickery on the other. I am very much interested in the

Astronomy web site that was referred to in the comments under

the image where this was featured. That tells me that the pattern

of star trails is probably true, but tells me nothing about the

exposure on the ground. Do the astronomers on that site know

or care about the truth of the ground exposure? Maybe not, but I

do. So would the 'Lost In America" web site if this image was

submitted to one of their competitions. I don't think they would

be pleased. If there are layers involved in the making of the

African sky image, either film or PS, I'd very much like to see

them separately so I can learn what is or is not possible were I

to attempt a single exposure of this scene. But I'm not going to

get to see them, am I?

It's weird to me, but my favorite pictures in this web page are the ones by Steven Dusk. I'm a bit envious of such great pictures. I was really unfortuneate to have had a roll of film accidentally x-rayed at the airport and my pics of Rome were fogged. Great shots Steven! it shows how St. Peter's really is! The one of the interior of the cupola is amazing!

 

As far as Dan's "image," I found it to look amazing. But I would never consider it a photograph.

"I hope you are not saying that applying a PS trick to a photograph is, in and of itself, 'original'."

Ohhhhhh ! :-))

Come on, Carl, I'm not born in a computer. Never touched PS before 1998, and have been a photographer for 10 years before that. If I had waited for PS to find "originality" in photography, I would have given up photography long ago. :-)

PShop, to me, is the best and the worst "fairly new" thing I've seen in the field. It is pretty much as good as the usage one makes of it. I don't judge tools, I look at pictures instead.

"The star image is an incredible PHOTOGRAPH only if it is a single long exposure."

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. If it is a multi-exposure on camera that needed to touch-up in PS later, then the photographer has even a lot more merit. Let me explain...

If the contrast of the various areas in this image is simply to high for film, and if the photographer finds a way around such a difficult situation, with only his knowledge and his camera and ONE SINGLE FRAME but seveveral exposures, I dare say he has mastered the craft.

If it is a long exposure and he has done anything to control de light, same merit.

If he was "just" lucky to capture this by a click on the shutter and then went for a 3 hours nap, there are 2 things to say. 1) Either he knew that all would be ok, and then hats off to hom. Either he just tried his luck and got lucky - still good, but not as much merit imo.

If he realized that there was too much contrast to achieve anything on a single frame (whether with 1 or more exposures) and if he really wanted the shot, shooting several exposures to combine them later was perhaps the best he could possibly do. At that stage, his merit is imo a bit lower, but he did the only thing he could to bring home the pieces needed to assemble the image later - and I would understand this if it's the last chance.

Where merit drops tremendously imo is if the picture is a lie, meaning that the stars wouldn't appear this way in this place.

When you wrote: "That's because it belongs to one category of understandable image capture on the one hand, and post capture trickery on the other", I have to say no. The world is NOT that black and white. NOT if you really understand the complexity of recording such an exposure on film. You HAVE TO allow the photographer to expose several times on his same film frame. That may just be the only way to achieve this. Don't confuse "manipulation" on camera to capture REALITY, and POST-PRODUCTION in PS to reconstruct reality, and post-pruction TRICKS to make people smaller for example or to put up a nice picture that's an ersatz for reality. These are 3 very distinct things - as a matter of fact, and not just imo, this time.

I wrote: "If it is a multi-exposure on camera that needed TO touch-up in PS later, then the photographer has even a lot more merit."

I meant instead: "If it is a multi-exposure on camera that needed NO touch-up in PS later, then the photographer has even a lot more merit."

As a semi-professional NATURE photographer, i assert that it is NOT okay to deceive a shot just to sell it. (i AM SPEAKING ABOUT NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY). One of my photos (sleeping raccoon) sold to the National Wildlife Federation and Wal-mart for $8000 used as a nationally-syndicated poster.

 

Although wal-mart could not have cared less, NWF was insistant on knowing whether the animal was in any way domesticated or fully wild. I confessed that I had been raising the animal myself and the image was labeled, "photo taken under controlled conditions" or some such explanation.

 

Here's my point. The fact that I had taken the shot under 'controlled conditions' was nearly make or break for the purchase. I could have lied and forfeited the $8000! But I didn't. Had another competitor shot similarly but lied, he/she might have scored the sale under false pretenses.

 

I am NOT critiquing the NWF's decision for rigidity in this matter... but it is an industry standard nature photographers must understand and consider.

 

If Dan manipulated the star shot from a series of others, and then sold it under the pretense of an non-composite photo, that IS A DAMAGING ACT to those who try to spread their natural wares (images) more truthfully. Carl brought up that such manipulation can dull the senses. That is so true! But it goes further for the professional. It skews the market in such a way that honest, hard-working folks who take honest shots can no longer compete.

 

Art Wolfe, for example in his book "wildlife in motion", shows an image filled with migrating zebras. A closer look reveals that many of the zebras are duplicates, cut and paste to fill the frame. How can an honest photographer (even one of great talent like the late Galen Rowell who philosophically was opposed to such manipulation) compete against that?

 

one cannot.

 

And so, when one asks if such manipulations (amplified to the point of deception through non-disclosure) can be damaging for the professional photographer, I call out a resounding, "YES!"

 

pete sherman (raccoon image (a bit dark) is on my site)

It's an old theme in the history of art and lit: grave men object to the arts because works of art are demonstrably fakes, fiction, lies, tricks, forgeries, frauds, phonies, illusions, fabrications, imitations, artful deceptions, artificial artifacts, artifice made by artisans and they admit it! Plato couldn't get over it, nor could the authors of Leviticus. OK, let's stretch a point: the world is ugly, there's room for ornamentation, maybe, but not art, which is just one thing pretending to be another.

That said, I don't care for this picture. Forget about the teeny people as a longtime fan of politics, I'm good at suspending disbelief for the sake of argument. It's the look of the photo that fails for me. Banal, no? Light beaming through a church window, converging verticals... I don't get it. My loss, I guess.