Fireworks

Marc, please be accommodating of opinions being honestly expressed in the first person. Larry and I (there I go again!) are clearly going against the flow here, but it is rewarding to find that one is not alone both with a concept of photography and with the desire and courage to express it within our fraternity. There's room for all of us I believe. Yannik's idea of a separate forum is neat, but hopefully unnecessary? Any of us who read Erwin Puts' Leica papers and blogs on the web will hear a chime with this discussion as he himself battles with the effects of the camera and software supply market, and modern user pressures, to redefine photography, whilst having the classic background and integrity to see all sides. It was not my intention to discuss art like this great picture of Paolo's in a way that creates a rift in our community, simply because it can be viewed with more than one set of criteria with mine being in the minority. I'm more than happy to be on the back foot, so long as minority views are respected.

Marc, please be accommodating of opinions being honestly expressed in the first person. Larry and I (there I go again!) are clearly going against the flow here, but it is rewarding to find that one is not alone both with a concept of photography and with the desire and courage to express it within our fraternity. There's room for all of us I believe. Yannik's idea of a separate forum is neat, but hopefully unnecessary? Any of us who read Erwin Puts' Leica papers and blogs on the web will hear a chime with this discussion as he himself battles with the effects of the camera and software supply market, and modern user pressures, to redefine photography, whilst having the classic background and integrity to see all sides. It was not my intention to discuss art like this great picture of Paolo's in a way that creates a rift in our community, simply because it can be viewed with more than one set of criteria with mine being in the minority. I'm more than happy to be on the back foot, so long as minority views are respected.

After reading Giorgio 's comment that the position of the rock was annoying him I had to go back and look since it did not bother me at all. It still does not. And I will also add that on many photos I think the rule of thirds should be thrown out the window. Sometimes rules don't apply.
Also, after looking at the b/w version, I like the foreground. The great thing about our imagination and perception is how we all see this image differently.
Paolo- Great portfolio!

Paolo, a brilliant photogaphic idea and a spledid realization. All beautiful. I would't crop anything for sake of the great sense of space and infinite, for the depth. Suggestions? I don't even dare. May be, a bit of more light on the little island, just a bit, for a hint of contrasting green among so many tonalities of blue, all in harmony; may be.
Bravo!

Well, I think I just have to thank everyone again for the great comments and thoughts offered to the discussion. It seems like this picture simply continue to intrigue and surprise, myself first!

Far be it from me to enter the never ending dispute about what photography is and what is not, I would just offer to the discussion a few thoughts that came to my mind by reading the last comments.

I decided to quote this post from Jon simply because I think it’s the “summa” of many comments which had more or less the same topic, so I’m not answering personally to Jon here, but rather to the concept expressed in such a concise and effective way.

Certainly I don’t pursue a “visual truth” in my work, not at least in such a “purist” way as the words above seems to express. Although I generally don’t alter my images beyond a certain degree (i.e at a point at which the place is not recognizable anymore), my main aim is always to trigger an emotional response from the viewer. The emotional component of a picture is for me as much important as the documentary information. And, ideally, this two parts must have the same strength in a picture. More precisely, for me a photograph to be considered successful must be strong both in an aesthetical and emotional way. Therefore the subject is very important for me, as well as important is the choice of the moment, the weather, the light, the balance of the elements in the composition, the harmony in contrast of tones and colours. If this can be achieved with what we can call a visual truth, I’ll go for it. But, what visual truth really is? This kind of dispute is really old, and I think we would all gain a lot by going beyond it. For example, it’s funny how sometimes people who call themselves “purists”, have nothing to complain about black and white photography…

So, at the end of the day I feel no pain in working on the image until it looks as I want it. More or less the same as the generations of photographers that before the digital era were used to spend their nights in the obscurity of their basements to experiment with enlargement, cropping, multiple exposures, dodging and burning, vignetting, etc. etc. etc.

And after all, if instead of “composite” I would have used the word “multiple exposure”, I wonder if this kind of different wording expressing exactly the same concept would have produced the same reaction. Because, at the end of the day, this is just a multiple exposure although made by mean of a digital workflow instead of an analogue one , which is an as old technique as photography. But boys, come on, should we be stopped in our reasoning by terminology?

Finally, I feel to say to those that think this is not photography, because it was made by mean of a digital workflow, that I fully understand them.

I have been in photography since a very early age, being a photographer's son naturally drove me to this passion which has grown in me year after year. I started taking photographs at the age of 14 with a Minox camera, and in more than 27 years I can say I shot every kind of camera, from 35 mm viewfinder and dslr, up to my beloved Mamiya Super 23 6x9. Three years ago, when I finally decided to shift to digital I was very diffident. Nowaday, I think my diffidence came from the fact that I was reluctant to leave a well known media for an unknown and new one. Now I thank every day my good star for that choice! I soon realized that with digital I had finally found the medium that allowed me to take and process my photos exactly as I always wished to do. Everyone is free to think of digital photography whatever he/she likes of course, but for me it’s quite clear now that the digital workflow is far superior to film in terms of creative possibilities, it’s almost limitless. And since the main reason for me for taking photographs is to express my creativity, I feel just fortunate to be living in such an exciting era, and I strongly encourage everyone I meet to embrace it.

Paolo

Un meritato premio per uno scatto veramente irrepetibile! Complimenti e auguri!

Paulo, I think there are two things going on here regarding the multiple exposure/composite thing. Some might be talking as purists and some, like me, are talking about whether the image looks like a composite or not. I know I don't care if the image is a composite, I just care that it looked like one--even before I saw some of the specific technical issues I brought up. But I am also pretty hard on images, there are just too many alternatives out there to settle.

I think that the beauty of all of it is that there are folks with varying aesthetics. Some people don't care about some things, but maybe they will others. The image is a striking image and that is sometimes all an image needs to be. Can it be made better, I think yes, but that is always left to the person who created it.

Regarding the digital process conversation, that seems to be getting off base a bit. Jerry Uelsmann made wonderful composites but they were all made by analog methods. The nature of the work allowed folks, not everybody though, to accept the fact that they knew the images were not representations of reality. But they were done so incredibly seamlessly, that it was hard to really tell that they were composites except for our knowledge of the real world. The image here is one that skates a fine line. It is a natural landscape and doesn't pretend to be fantasy, but it is a fantasy of sorts. So I think you have to allow, because of all of these things, that, despite any technical issues, there will disparate views--in the final analysis, no one is really right or wrong, it is personal just opinion/preference.

I was once told that a good photographer/artists work is either loved or hated by people, that anything else and you weren't a factor to be dealt with!

I do allow that of course John, and believe me, I didn't take any word reported here as personally addressed, first because it's just not my habit, and second because I do think that what we have discussed here so far goes well beyond the photo. I do really love how and how much the discussion has developed and I am also a bit surprised of this, honestly I didn't expect it, but I'm happy of this.
It's far from me to be judging who is right and who is wrong, I just wanted to offer my point of view and my personal history on how I went through the technological development which affected photography - and all of us as photographers - in the recent years.
That's it, nothing more and nothing less.
Thanks again.
Paolo

Keith,
I was in no way dismissing your point of view and I apologize if I implied that. I just found it interesting that the critiques on the pro side were written in a different voice than those on the con side. This forum is about different points of view and produce some thought provoking angles on something we all have in common... a love of visual images.

Sorry paolo, but to do a composite it is very bad composed, the crop is lot more better composition, anyway i don´t see any merit doing manipulation in landscape and nature photography, if you send this to National Geographie Magazine you go directly to the black list and you will be never able to sell them a shot, there are seriouse landscape photographers which ones never do composite and they realise better compositions than this directly in the field without manipulating, for me it is ridicoulous than someone rate this with a 7/7, hapiness that i´m not the only one thinking this way...anyway you are honest telling us it is a manipulation and the scene was never existed, just a 5 minutes scene of a movie like¨Transformers¨ contains hundreds of beautifull manipulated images. Photography must to be the capture of a special real and unique existing moment to be great appart of course of a good light and a good composition, sorry that can´t be done in a site in front of a computer, the real artists do they photos face to face with the action and don´t manipulate to create a fake illusion, there are lot of movies for that proposite which beat any manipulated photo, but this good movies can´t beat a real scene with a great talented composition of a single second or less moment where something extraordinary happens, that´s photography my friend.
f.

Fernando, thanks for your contribution. I wonder though what in your opinion the "B" pose is there for, then.

Rgds,
Paolo

Paolo,
I love this shot. It's very evocative. To me, photography is reproducing how YOU saw the scene and if you need to use a few images to do that, that's what you do. I personnally try to capture the scene in camera, but I can imagine the lightning flashes being so quick and close together, that the only way to capture the scene before you was by blending the appropriate images.
Congratulations and well done!

Its a beautiful picture. Period. Your labor on it is very effective, and that can be appreciated as well. I am more and more amused by those who want to dictate what photography is - not what it is to them, but what the rest of the world should think it is. The wonder of photography has only been expanded exponentially by access to digital technology, and for me it has opened up whole new ways to think about what photographs can be. Certainly we all tilt over the edge of 'too much' - that's a learning process. Paolo, this is not 'too much' for me, and your description of the work you put into it adds to my appreciation.

I find the image very pleasing to look at. I read the many comments and went through serious scrutiny of the image on a second computer monitor while reading the critiques.

I am glad you finished the editing and posted it as it is for us to enjoy. It has many wonderful qualities to appreciate. I love the theme created by your crop. The colors are wonderful and create an enchanting mood. It must have been an epic day to photograph that scene.

I think this is a terrific image.

What Paolo has done digitally doesn't seem all that different from what a film photographer might have done with a cable release on a camera with a Compur shutter (which on "B" can be repeatedly opened and closed, 10-seconds-at-a-time if desired, to catch multiple lightning strikes, successive bursts of fireworks, etc.)...followed by careful dodging and burning of the negative in a darkroom to balance densities.

Paolo did not create an "imaginary landscape." He didn't add, delete, or change any geographic feature, or introduce imaginary elements. Had any of us been there on the sea cliff that night, we too would've seen, during that two-or-three-minute period, the cumulative sight that Paolo has presented here. As long as a photographer is as forthright as Paolo has been, about the process.he has used, such an image seems (to me) to be as "truthful" as a multiple-time-exposure using film, or time-lapse photography,

With regard to composition and cropping, I agree word-for-word with the comments, above, of John A. (Nov. 17, 03:29 P.M.):

"I don't feel the image to be loose or unfocused (subject-wise) and the extra spaces are what give it a wonderful elegance and allow the image to go beyond just description or documentary. This is a very serene image except for the violence of the far off storm. We are safe as a viewer, but can recognize the tentativeness of our situation as we look out across the water. We are allowed to feel the anticipation of what is approaching or relax in what has passed. As the crops get tighter, the image does not get better in any way, but becomes substantially different and less I believe. We lose all sense of dichotomy and it starts to become just another photo of something rather than one that transcends its subject. It sort of starts to feel like a sports photograph, where the action is simplified and important but I think I prefer to enjoy the entire setting, not only the game, but the air, the water and the possibilities."

That is really eloquently stated. When I first saw this image I felt a sense of deja vu , which grew stronger the more I looked at it. When I read John A.'s description, I realized why. Paolo's image recalled to mind not only queasy memories being on open water during electrical storms, but a long-ago art-history lecture about Pieter Breughel the Elder's painting, Landscape With the Fall of Icarus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bruegel,_Pieter_de_Oude_-_De_val_van_icarus_-_hi_res.jpg

Breughel's painting is said to draw power from its contrast of atmosphere and mood. In the familiar landscapes ringing the harbor, and among the foreground figures going about their daily business, there is a palpable sense of normalcy, safety, routine, everyday-ness; while off in the distance, disregarded yet in plain view, a different kind of world co-exists, one that is violent and ominous and might come calling at any time. It is dominated by an active volcano and the sun's burning heat, which are reflected in belching clouds and the glare on the water. Icarus, an outsider and doomed intruder into the placid neighborhood of the harbor, is plunging into the water to his death, not far from the stern of a passing ship--ignored by all.

Paolo's image is less complex than Breughel's, obviously; but in both compositions, the viewer is gazing downward and outward across an expanse of water, at a distant sight of natural violence and great potential danger. But distance buffers the viewer from that danger. In each case, the gradual transition of visual cues from the far-off sight of extreme violence to a foreground of serenity is calming...kind of. (Only Icarus, dropping like a lead shot from above, disturbs the tranquility of Breughel's harbor.) Even the color of light in Paolo's image has something in common with the color of light in Breughel's.

Personally I prefer film photography. (I don't even have a digital camera.) But Paolo's image really appeals to me. It connects at a deep level, and is satisfying psychologically and visually. It strikes me as a truthful "construction" of a record of events--albeit a selective record--as they actually occured over several minutes' time. The successive chronological elements were recorded through a single lens, from a single vantage point, in the general tradition of time-exposures or time-lapse photography.

If Paolo had digitally added the figure of a paparazzo dropping head-first from the sky into the sea between two lightning bolts, cradling his memory card, wings ablaze, one's reaction might be different....

i realy like the atmosphere of this. its real moody. purely on that level its succesful.
technically, well i envy the skills displayed here.
if i have to realy nitpic, compositionally i find the placement of the isle slightly disturbing. i also find the format slighly disturbing. i would have either squashed it into a square or stretched into more of a rectangularar 4x3, 3x5 format. its either/or. thats just me.
i may have taken a horizontal 3x5 format shot with the sea horizon slicing the shot in two...one half capturing the open space of the sea and the other ... sky.

I agree with

Mark Onat , Nov 17, 2009; 08:05 p.m. "Photography to some degree is about reality"!

When you manipulate a photo as much as this, you create something unreal and disturbing! It results in endless discussions... Good choice for photo.net forum!

Hi paolo, i´m not critiquing or against your photo or your work, i´m just pointing something that the most of people here forget about photography, for those who said Wow! terrific! it would be nice they buy you a copy and paid a good amount of money for it like a good art inversion, but that another story....if they must to paid suddendly it is not has terrific ím wrong?? I´m sure i´m not better than you, my coment is clearly against hypocrisy and blindness,
Best regards
f.

I would not change a thing or crop the photo in any way..

Great image, the tonal range is good in this image, I love the clouds, the exposure time has worked well to bring out the clouds. I don't like the crops of the image, The tonal range coming towards to edges getting darker is good as there is nothing distracting for the viewer, however, maybe if the stone was composed more towards the lower right, and the horizon was on a third this may have worked better. Apart from that, great shot J

This is a great image that stimulated a lot of philisophical discussion. I see it as a study in light and colors, much preferring the original crop to any of the others presented. The added water in front of the island give more range of color and light. The range of cool to warm color is stunning. I think that all the proposed crops dilute the color and light range, taking away from the image.
I'll admit that I saw the multiple lightning strikes in the image and immediately thought, "unreal." Now that Paolo tells us that this is a 75-second exposure, then I think, "Ok, I can believe that." That was the only element that bothered me at all.
Paolo probably didn't construct this image to please photographers and I think that's the best decision. What he's done is powerful and shouldn't be diluted by the arbitrary "rules" of certain people.

Lovely photo, however I feel it could be even better had the rock been placed lower to the right in the frame.

Robert Rodvik

Paolo, Well done. I really like the B+W version.