Mount Saint Michel - Window

Here is the original image shot at ISO 400, f4.0 and 1/50sec, F= 28 mm (35mm equivlent). Yes it was one RAW file processed for shadows, highlights, and then an adjustment layer, to bring out the window. The grain was done by creating a pencil sketch layer and then changing the blend mode to multiply. Tom

Hi Tom, I like your second version better, great shot, congrats //Salvador

I would guess the main reason this was chosen as "POW" is NOT the worth of the finished product, but to compare the two versions and present to the reader and commenter the question of whether the HDR process by itself is an unalloyed good. As some have correctly pointed out, and as a person who dabbles in--perhaps, "splurges" is a more appropriate word, in all the different variations of the HDR process, I tend to think the finished product does violence to one's senses. Now, my point is not that all HDR is wrong, or that there is some morally righteous idea that a picture should not be improved based on some archaic concept of "realism" (Ansel Adams used to stack up to four filters at one, then burned his images ad nauseum), but that a picture should endeavor, besides realizing the artist's vision, to present that which is somewhat recognizable to the unwashed as a semblance of that represented. I, personally, like the HDR process, but think it is misused when it is used to deny the natural effects of the sun or light sources to illuminate things. I think shadows are very important to a picture, and think tonal range, from the purest whites to the velvet blacks all have a place in the image, and denial of that fact tends to distort reality, and that is sometimes unsettling. Now, this image, as it is, is passable, but if it was in my hands, I would probably eschew the extreme HDR that was done here, and vignetted the sides a bit to create that sense of depth visible in the regular image, while using the tone-mapping technique to lower the values in the objects outside.

I like the (original) image because it is a SPIRAL to me. Wonderful shot and the processing done to it Tom. This spirals in for me into the bright central window.
Excellent.

I must be missing something here. I for one can only mirror what Gordon has said. With all due respect for Tom, it's a technically very weak and boring photo with badly controlled lighting. There's nothing that I can see that is even remotely interesting to me.

Ton & Emmanuel: I am here to learn. If you would like to show me how to improve upon this photo send me an email and I'll send you the RAW file. I would very much appreciate the help. Tom

I do like the composition, texture and especially the retained detail in the shadows and highlights. I was reminded of forty-five years ago and a summer with Ansel Adams and wondering if a similar image could have been captured on film -- and doubting it. One of the features that I like best about the image is how it truly exploits the capabilities of digital photography from the CCD through processing in Photoshop. Well done!
John

I like the composition and the graininess of the look. But I also find the window just slightly overpowering and hard to look at due to brightness.

I can only support Francesco Pessolano's, Gordon Bowbrick's, and Ton Mestrom's statements.
The selection criteria of the PoW are not clear, but considering that the visual impact of a photo is related to the message it passes - which has basically to do with the emotional and rational perception of

• subject
• composition (what is there and what is not there ),
• it's originality (seen before? ),
• tonality, contrast, lights and shadows, in-focus and out-of-focus areas, and
• the often imperceptible (and unexplainable ) mix of all these features

this photo is has a weak visual impact.
And then

there seems to be a mistaken idea that post-processing can work miracles. Of course, this photo can be digitally altered along unpredictable artistic paths, elaborating it beyond any visual imagination. But its original visual impact remains weak.

Luca has raised a good point regarding the currently pervasive notion that a poorly executed original capture can be elevated to the stature of a well executed original capture via post processing. Tom has graciously provided us with a jpeg of the original capture and explained that rather than using separate exposures for an hdr, or otherwise blended exposure, he had to rely on reworking the same raw file . While that approach can be of use in some circumstances to pull up a bit of shadow detail etc. the extreme dynamic range of this scene caused the approach to fail in this instance. Employing the common practice of adding a PS filter layer, in this case Tom tells us he used pencil sketch, to try and disguise the shortcomings of the original file is also a pervasive strategy, a strategy which in this case, as in most cases, only makes matters worse.

We all have instances where we missed an opportunity to get the shot , however I do believe that in most of those cases there is more dignity in accepting that we blew the opportunity than in dressing up our mistakes and parading them out as art. My last statement falls into the category of a general observation on current trends rather than any specific assessment of Tom's motives, which I cannot claim to be clear about.

I know Ton Mestrom's talents well enough to know that he is capable of getting very impressive results with his PP work, however no amount of tweaking is going to make shadow detail that is thin and noisy look good, any more than PP can make blown highlight detail magically appear. Photo shop has a magic wand tool however even photo shop cannot make something out of nothing.

OK this is pow, I should respect experts' point of view. I don't understand this choice as I find it quite boring and not that beautiful so the conclusion is maybe that I have so much more to learn than I thought to understand photography and its subtleties...

I attach a different interpretation to the reworking of the photo. I do not see it so much as a salvage job as seeing other opportunities after the picture has been taken. Tom could have run it through PS and gotten the perspective corrected. He could also have used three files--and did in the second version that he posted.

I think that it is wonderfully done, not a failed shot at all. Yes, other choices were available during the post-processing phase, and one might prefer one over another, but to see this as a failed shot is to impose a judgment based entirely on the extra information that Tom voluntarily provided, not on the merits of the image(s) in question.

I am not sure which version I like better, and I am fairly indifferent where such a small amount of perspective correction might be called for--and I don't find the level of noise that overwhelming.

I hate to contradict Gordon so direclty, since I admire both his work and his opinions immensely. I simply like the picture and would like to see a variety of possible variants in post-processing.

--Lannie

I have the feeling that this is turning into a debate on how to use post-processing techniques to elaborate a photo.
I am neutral in respect to any technique - thus in respect to the explanations Tom has provided - but would like to consider the overall and independent visual impact of this photo.
The fact that there are so many approving remarks - I particularly value Lannie's - perplexes me.
Without knowing anything about this photo I would say that it is a representation of the window of a medieval building with some evident issues in lighting and grain. The perspective is quite simple and straightforward and therefore platitudinous. As a viewer I am not supposed to be aware of the looks of the original photo and what has been done with it in post-processing.
But the fact that a minority of posts highlights photographic issues about this take makes me think that practically any photo can be considered of high aesthetic value, simply on the basis of a subjective perception.

As I read the discussion here, I think a good look at Tom's portfolio can actually give us a better insight into what is going on here than even looking at this photograph.

There are many reasons photographers make images and the results will quickly tell us what is important to the image maker. Tom's images tell us a lot and his intro on his bio page even more.

Tom, whether consciously or not, simply makes records of what he sees--snapshots if you will. He captures information and rarely attempts to design an image or interpret or imbue it with something more than what was there. What we see is what we get and, generally, that will be pretty boring to those outside of the "loop". The loop will include those interested in what he photographed and particularly those he shared his experience with--his wife. The beauty of the image is then encapsulated within the memories of being there and not in the image itself. So there is little for others to grab onto. Because of the "work" done here on this image, possibly Tom is looking to go beyond this recording of things and into something a bit more rich. If so, I hope these comments can open up a path.

This image, like a few others, has a little more to it than just the capture of detail, but detail certainly could have been the overriding motivation. Here we have not just a window, but also a dynamic introduced by the curving arch that intersects the window, giving a bit of movement to the image. On the other hand, the placement of the window weighs the image down and pretty much neutralizes that movement.

Looking at the original capture and then the post interpretations, I also wonder how much attention Tom is giving to the photography versus the recording. It would be easy to look on the back of the camera and to see a "too heavy" image for this rendition/visualization and then bracket the shot--or to have moved the camera meter to the darker stone rather than having it centered on the window light, set the exposure and then recomposed. The original image indicates a bit more of a quick shot to get what was seen and not the process of making a photograph.

These comments may be a bit harsh and I don't mean them to be offensive, but maybe more to call what is going on to the fore. I offer these observations in the spirit of helping Tom learn and hope they will be accepted as such. If we want images that do more than create a toggle to access our memories we have to work harder at the design and structure of the image and what "content" we are putting into them.

Landrum;

Please feel free to contradict me directly whenever the occasion should arise. That we all have differing opinions is what makes discussion interesting.

I fully understand you interpretation of the reworking. In the end what matters is the image and how the viewer relates to the photo. I am not suggesting that an image has to be optimally captured as regards the technical aspects in order to be effective. In this instance the lack of technical proficiency does not improve the photo. In some instances blown highlights or noise or soft focus add to the overall aesthetics of the image. With this photo, for my tastes, they detract. While there can be no debate that the original file has technical limitations the success of the image aesthetically is purely subjective.

Your above quoted comment is untrue.

I made the above statement before Tom mentioned that he had to work this up from a single raw file. I could plainly see from the image that the result fell short of what would be expected from blending multiple exposures.

Beautiful lines and composition. I would love to see a little more contrast. Still a very good presentation. Well done.

Tom,

first of all thank you for your response. Secondly, if you need help you can drop me a mail through the PN system anytime and I'll get back to you. Thirdly I'm not going to do any work on this RAW file because frankly I don't see the point. Let me try to explain:

you shot in light conditions with a dynamic range your camera couldn't handle. It's as simple as that. Sure one could do a few corrections all of which are destructive as you've noticed yourself. So is trying to salvage what is wrong to begin with from such a single file, be it HDR or ETR.

a lot of comments were made about your composition. Superlatives like beautifull, excellent, fantastic and what not were used. I have no reason to doubt a considered approach in shooting this but from where I'm sitting it doesn't give that impression. In other words had you just walked past and taken a fast and easy shot it most likely would have looked the same. If not perhaps anyone of the above would care to explain in detail what is in fact so excellent about the composition in this photo so we might all learn something.

Some people seem bewildered why this was chosen as POW. Once again it merely goes to show that people don't read what is actually stated. The basis for any POW is it's worth or value for discussion. Nothing more, nothing less and in my opinion the Elves did actually a very good job.

Lannie, I know you well enough to believe you probably didn't mean it that way but the way you formulated this sentence implies that you question both the motives and honesty of all those that are less than positive about this photo.

Luca stated that he is perpelexed by the many approving remarks. I can understand that but I'm not. I'm merely dissapointed because some of the above people should (and actually do) know better. It's a phenomenon not just on this photo but something one can find all over this site. People should realise that gratuitous comments are actually a disservice to any photographer, in this case Tom.

If on the other hand the argument should be that some of us might not be in the loop than any basis for any meaningfull and constructive discussion is gone. Let's keep in mind that this is a photography site and that by uploading them we expose them to critique.

Lastly, Tom. Someone once told me that having ones work chosen for POW can be a double edged sword and by now I think you know why. A long time ago a old, wise and very good photogrpaher told me that no photo ever became better or worse from any critique. Just keep that in mind.

Congratulations! I wonder how it would look if you shot in a different time of a day, when the contrast is not as strong as in the current photo. HDR, as others say, would be a solution but sometimes HDR pictures look a bit unnatural to my eyes- although HDRs have their own merits.

I agree with Luca, Gordon, and Ton in spirit for sure. I don't think the photo as presented works. It's flat and doesn't engage me.

I do see potential in the original, however, though it would be up to the photographer whether it's worth pursuing and what the vision is. Were it mine and I felt so inclined, I think I could get a moody, somewhat expressionist image out of it. Or I could go to more extremes and make the blown highlights work, offsetting that by a heavy, almost graphic handling of the shadows. My guess is that Tom would come up with a different vision, given what I see of his own work. My first visualization upon seeing the original would be to make the most out of the simple and potentially sensual and expressive highlighted curve of the archway above the window. That could feel like it was intimately connected to the light of the window itself and sort of gradually appear from out of the darkness. It could be a long punctuation mark, the gestural aspect of the photo. Mystery would surround the window, probably not pure black, but a sense that I could feel the texture of the wall without really seeing it clearly. The inset of the window would be the most nuanced aspect, where the light would create depth within that inset so it would really feel like I and the walls of the inset were moving toward the window and the light. I'd have to work hard on the window to get what the exposure has given me to feel expressive.

That being said, I'm in firm agreement with Gordon that sometimes it's better to trash something (or hold onto it until a brainstorm comes) than to doctor it up. Sometimes, we come close but it's just no cigar. No matter how we "feel" about the situation or the potential or how we visualized the photo, if we didn't get it, we didn't get it and it's pointless to convince ourselves or anyone else that we did. Though it doesn't by any means necessarily apply to Tom Wiggins or this photo, I think Gordon's insightful statement bears repeating:

"there is more dignity in accepting that we blew the opportunity than in dressing up our mistakes and parading them out as art."

I think there could be some artistic approaches to this photo, given how it was shot. Were it mine, I'm not sure I'd make the attempt, but I have appreciated the chance to be hypothetical about it. Sometimes, just considering what you might do is learning and challenging enough. But that might be put to better use on a shot you feel more inclined to take those risks with. It's one of the things about sorting through our own work that's so important. What is the potential and what will be worth the effort? I know I've worked on some shots that others would have trashed and I feel I've gotten some expressive and satisfactory results from what looked like awful originals. Doing so was challenging and rewarding, and I am pleased with the results, even if some of the process was ugly.

I've had about enough of that one--whether Gordon is applying it to this shot or not. This is a good shot, not a blown opportunity. Whether it is art I will leave for the elites to decide. I don't purport to be among them.

What really makes this shot for me is something that has not been addressed (to my knowledge)--the portion of the other arch that flies over the top. The composition is masterful, and that is what makes this memorable for me. As for the texture, I like the realistic feel. It looks to me like real stone. As for noise, I think that we are nit-picking on that one.

I sure am glad that HCB did not toss the original of the man about to step into the mud puddle. He violated his own rule and cropped it--and left us with a masterpiece. Tom's shot might not be a masterpiece, but I like it.

--Lannie

With reference to the concept of art

I believe that this is much too far fetched. Whether this is art or not is not for debate here.

Concerning the composition, the window is almost in the dead centre of the photo, which normally makes a photo not too interesting. Such arches are very common in medieval buildings, nothing original on that side.
As for the texture, it is heavily influenced by the technical aspects of the take and of the post processing, i.e. noise and grain. I can assure that the feel is not very realistic, considering how these stone walls really look like.
Obviously any photo can be considered a masterpiece on the basis of subjective perceptions.
But I also believe that aesthetics is also based on objective criteria of visual impact, balance and that these objective criteria should be involved to some extent when expressing an aesthetic judgement. These objective criteria have been developed in centuries of artistic creativity by any possible means of visual expression.
What I would like to read are critiques not merely based on subjective criteria.

Well, then you better go into chemistry or physics. You won't find the kinds of objective criteria you want in art, especially if you really believe what you have written: "I also believe that aesthetics is also based on objective criteria of visual impact, balance and that these objective criteria should be involved to some extent when expressing an aesthetic judgement."

Good luck in your quest for objectivity in art. It does not exist.

As for the centering of the window (or, more precisely, the arch), the symmetry that usually accompanies such centering (and is often fatal aesthetically) is offset substantially in this work by the other arch that comes from the left and goes over the main arch upward and towards the right.

--Lannie

Actually, objectivity is really one of the keystones of good critique, but is only a part of it. The idea is that learning to critique in its pure form is to allow us to approach any visual and begin to understand it. We describe the elements of design used/present and by so doing start to objectively see what was done and how a visual was put together. Then, we make certain subjective determinations based on how the elements were used (understanding how they impact images) and its effect on us. In art school, the students are taught to do this and then to use those elements to describe how their use was either successful or not or how those elements informed the piece. Some subjectivity, but not personal, if you will. I did an interview regarding critique on another photo site and it can be googled under my name and "art of critique"--and has a bit of extra info you might enjoy Lannie, if you don't know it already! ;)

Now as to subjectivity, based on your earlier comment about the arch, apparently you missed my discussion of this element in my first post here and its affect on the image. I think it is the one saving graces to the image, something that makes it more than just a record shot of a window. But I also feel that, not because the window is centered but because of how the image was cropped, placing the window near the bottom of the image, that the dynamics introduced into the image by that arch is thwarted. We again are brought back to a sense that this was a record shot not an interpretive one, much like most of Tom's work.

Thanks for the referral to your essay on another site, John. I will try to get to it after class.

My prima facie response is that analysis has indeed increased over the centuries without a corresponding increase in the quality of art. It reminds me somewhat of literary criticism and its relationship to literary creation.

Another instant reaction I have (which I shall have to rethink) is that most of our analysis is done ex post facto, not before works of art are produced. Whether these analyses actually contribute much by way of improvement on subsequent works is problematic for me.

I enjoy the analysis, including the give and take in this thread, but when all is said and done I tend to go with more of a gut feeling as to whether I like something or not.

As for "art," and what it is and how to promote it, I have to walk away from that one, even though objectivity plays a role in the creation of art and in any subsequent esthetic evaluation of it. I would simply tend to think, however, that it is the smaller part of our evaluation: subjectivity still tends to carry the day. We are talking beauty here, and we might as well be talking metaphysics as much as esthetics. That is, we can keep speculating on such things (in both realms), but we are only given choices by our analyses. The final decisions are somehow beyond our rational, objective analysis, in my opinion.

As for Tom's work, I would like to recommend this one to address the issue you have raised about the nature and style of Tom's work. Much of it is simply documentary, but much of his best work is interpretative to some significant extent, I think: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10665652

Thanks for your comments, in any case. I know nothing. My field is moral and political philosophy (in a political science department, at that), not esthetics (the spelling preferred by philosophers, for those who might be wondering).

--Lannie

Lannie, it always boils down to a personal choice and how something resonates with us. But learning the basic elements of your subject, which is that basis of good critique, will allow you to grow and appreciate ever more complex things. Even in your field, someone who is interested but not educated in it will think something you find brilliant to be obtuse, haughty, or too academic to have any real value---sound familiar?

For some reason photographers, as a group, don't want to really learn about what they do visually and seem more interested in their gadgets!