Blåvand

Well said Michael. This is good advise for people who are learning. I know I was sensitive at first, and learned to take the critiques as a gift, and use it to try different things.
The Photo as I see it seems to be rather comical. I am getting tired of seeing this type of processing, but it is not a bad photo, and I am sure that it means something to someone. I guess bottom line, thats what counts.

I like the gritty and dark look of the Photo, as well as being impressed with the excellent depth of field and composition which as a beginner I still struggle with. For me the only thing that puts me off is the facial expression, but i guess that really is just a matter of taste.
The " this has been done " argument, well for those of us who haven't been students of photography for 5 years or more we actually haven't seen this been done to death and it still has value even if only to educate us that this type of treatment isn't fashionable right now and that we should avoid it. At some point it probably will become fashionable again as these things go in cycles.
As for those people saying that the ciritique is TOO critical and hurtful, and that the photo is not worthy of a Photo of the week, the only thing I can say is that I would be more than happy to be torn down and rebuilt as a photographer through the harsh critiques given by the quality photographers on this site ( of which there are many)
If the photo of the week is meant to inspire discussion, it has to split opinions, otherwise we just get a litanny of "well done" and "excellent work" comments. If I was in the fortunate position to have one of my beginner offerings chosen as POW, I would be more than happy to have it torn to bits and reconstructed by better photographers than I am. That is the point of these sites and forums is it not ?

" The lot of you need to get off of your high horses and remember where you came from. "


There is nothing wrong with my memory. When I was in a full time photography program, our instructors put our most recent assignment work in front of the class each week and proceeded to climb on their high horses and tell us in no uncertain terms every little failure they perceived. In some circles we call that an education.

Even though the POW has backslid dramatically since Mary left, this forum is the only place at PN where one can find any comments which extend beyond the usual sycophantic "great capture my dear friend " rhetoric PN has become over-run with.


" Too many artists have been persecuted over the centuries for their vision and style only to be renowned after their death. "


Yeah in a couple of centuries they will be hanging wide angle HDR's in the museum along side of the velvet Elvis portraits.

Michael Chang & Gordon B. have stated it the best.
Robert, I think you're a bit sensative to the issue. Elves select on what they feel will generate a great deal of discussion throughout the week. No one is here to purposely "Trash another's work." Members are merely stating their opinion. Remember, it's all subjective

Considering the intended purpose of the photographer, I think the photo works very well, particularly the strong perspective. The dragan effect helps, IMO.

great technique and point of view. the processing is interesting, probably wrong to call it overdone, because it is chosen with some purpose by the author, gives a particular mood for this joke and i think it works well. very well done for what it is, even if we cant call it art.
i dont believe that this or any other kind of processing must be forbidden just because some similar it was used by someone before. in the end there is nothing new, everybody is influenced by others. in this case even if the processing is out of fashion and not original, but it was chosen for a photo that is very different than the ones before. this combination makes it feel fresh in my opinion.

I agree that this image has been over-processed, but the image was never misrepresented from what I can tell. It really doesn't do much for me. Even without the excessive HDR, it wouldn't do much for me.

However, I am happy this image was selected as POW because I see that I'm not the only one on here that has a distaste for over-saturation, over-contrasting, and abuse of the HDR tools. Call me a traditionalist and out of date all you want, but there's a reason 400 year old paintings are still more highly regarded today than photohop paintings.

As for this critique as a whole? I've watched architecture professors smash other students' models. Rip up their drawings, and basically verbally wreck an idea. Like it was stated before, it's called an education. I paid 35k a year for 8 years of it. Be thankful that on here it's free.

And for you Christian. Take it all with a grain of salt. Some people don't know what they are talking about, and some of them are just having a bad day. If it works for you then pursue it. In the long run, you may or may not find a market/audiance for it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try again. The next time you try you might create something beautiful. Personally, if I had an image selected for POW and everyone on here told me to kill myself because of how bad it was, I would still be happy. It means, at the very least, that it made some waves and cause someone to think about it. Controversy is good.

I can mildly compliment the POW as an image and computer concoction everybody may want to have a try at at least once or twice. Before getting back to the area he or she shines at, seems gifted at. Like panoramas and other more naturalistic subject matter. Focus is the thing as we can't be doing all of it all the time. A flight of fancy is great, I do it, and you do it.. A little crazy and even absurd is good; the nature of experiments and flights of fancy that get the juices going. I look at it and think,hmm, I just got dropped into a video game, maybe one of old maybe. Not bad, not good and not unworthy and not deserving of rejection, which leaves it someplace else. (I might add that our sprawling young adventurer needs better Vibram sole rock climbing footwear, mid- ankle Salomons would do nicely)

I like what Dylan and Gordon B. have said...As a relative beginner here, I learn a whole lot from these discussions and I rapidly scroll through the "great image!" comments to get to the more meaty critiques. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, often I don't know enough to agree or disagree...but I learn! I also would love to have folks rip apart one of my photos. Learning can be painful, but that's life. Thanks, Christian for a great contribution to photo.net..and, by the way, you do have some really awesome work in your portfolio that is what most would see as more "traditional". Thanks!

Just my two cents about it all, I do think sometimes the comments go over the top. While, on the other hand, I do believe that this forum, specifically, is about being a bit more critical than one might be otherwise. As a showcase for in-depth analysis, there is a reason and a rationale for more pointed comments for the sake of learning and education but never a reason to be inhuman! There is no question that some cross this line at times without any attempt to add to the conversation.

Believe me John that was worth considerably more than two cents........ priceless actually!

The only matter left to work out is to whom it might fall to determine what does and does not add to the conversation.

I believe that this image has some artistic value and is a form of art that possibly goes beyond traditional photography into the 21 century. To call it excessive or overdone, because it displays more detail or that because it is done with a process that you personally feel to be a passing fad is really just ignorance. On one hand I read this look is way too popular and the other I read it is a fad that has passed? The HDR process is just another tool for an artist to use to express themselves as traditional filters and darkroom processes were 25 years ago. I have looked through all of your photo galleries and I see one thing in common; you are all talented and have at least one great photo. Some of you have used different techniques to achieve the look or appeal that makes your photo great, what is the difference with what Christian has done here?

If the 491 year old master artist Da-Vinci was alive today I’m sure he would have embraced HDR imagery and Raphael may have not. For those of you who say that it is not possible for the artist who uses tools or methods that are not traditional or approved by the mainstream masses to achieve the same level of prominence as traditional artist of the past, I have one name for you “Picasso” with his final works he produced a torrent of paintings and hundreds of copperplate etchings. At the time these works were dismissed by most as pornographic fantasies of an impotent old man or the slapdash works of an artist who was past his prime. Only later, after Picasso’s death, when the rest of the art world had moved on from abstract expressionism, did the critical community come to see that Picasso had already discovered neo-expressionism and was, as so often before, ahead of his time.

Three of Picasso’s paintings are on the top ten lists of most expensive paintings of all time. And yes Elvis is there too with Andy Warhol’s “Eight Elvis’s” sold for 100 million dollars. So what does Picasso have to with this thread, all one has to do is read some of the comments that a number of you have left about Christian’s processes and style used to achieve his artistic vision and you may be able see a parallel. Not that I think that this particular image is worthy of such greatness, but I am not so closed minded to believe that an image with this process could not reach greatness in the future. Superlative art comes from with-in, not from the processes used.

Francisco, I think you might have misunderstood some of the comments.

I think you will agree that not every photo created with artistic intent has artistic merit, and I think many will also agree that the often (over)use of tone mapping, HDR etc. are in many instances experiments without an objective - tweak the knoobs and see how it turns out. Sure, we all do it to some extent, but many will quickly realize the value of its nuanced application to a photo which will enhance it, not scream of it, and learn to use it with discretion when necessary.

Instead of defending the photographer or the technique, I would love to hear your views on the photo and learn why you like it and how you think it can be 'improved'.

I think the point that almost everyone is saying on this thread, though not everyone is taking the same side, is that the digital manipulation draws more attention than the image itself. So now I think you have to ask yourself, even as an experiment, does that help or hinder the image? As for Picasso, granted he was rather bold in his thoughts and predominant style, there was a reasoning behind his paintings. Capture an extended period of time and motion on the canvas. Why did you use HDR? Don't be embarrassed or shy to tell us. Maybe if we knew why it was done we could understand better what the image is trying to be. Acceptable answers include "it's cool," "I spilled my coffee and accidentally hit a few keys," "my cat made me do it," and "just to experiment" etc. ;-) Ha ha. The first time I used HDR was to make a pretty picture for a resume. After about thirty tries, I finally nailed it, and nailed the interview.

I like the image but I can't put my finger on what it reminds me of... a characture perhaps of an aspiration for an inhabitant.  No lighthouse in the photo but beach... its creative but not representative of the name it bears.

This is neither very funny, nor interesting as far as I'm concerned, but it invites to go to his site and admire some of his few photos that have been uploaded. Especially those from Lanzarote are good in my eyes. Looking forward seeing more, despite the "image" that this POW gives of the photographer.

Author of the photo
Thank you for all your critics - and yes they are all welcome even if they are a bit negative, I respect totally all your opinions and I am complete openminded for this.

The photo really is much more simple than many of you have stated here:
1. It was just a funny holiday situation, playing with the wideangle. To increase the funny atmosphere I added this effect. I know that it seems to much, but the intention was just to give it a "comics/cartoon" look.
2. It is not HDR, but basicly the light areas have been increased and the dark areas decreased.
3. The sharpness was made by the high pass effect.

It has no meening to find out what I am going to tell with the photo, why the face expression is like this etc... it was just a funny moment. That´s all - and I decided to upload it, because I found it a bit different from other photos here in photo.net

On the other hand I am thankful for your positive critics for the rest of my portfolio, photos I feel more for.

Best regards to all of you
Christian

With reference to the previous posters' comments, it is my opinion that photographic techniques are timeless.  If you allow your photography to jump from one technique to the other, essentially burning the bridges as you go, you become much like fashion or fad.  If however, you keep the techniques you've developed, and combine them and use them at your discretion, you become a more well-rounded and balanced photographer.  I doubt the photographer asked for this to be the POTW, but it is obvious that he intended for the photo to be fun and engaging, and on that level he has succeeded, and therefore his photo is worthy of discussion and worthy of being the POTW.  Perhaps my 15 years or so of photographing things has not been enough to make me tired of certain techniques.  Rather I still look at photos with all the wonder and the feeling of a child who is amazed that we can capture and freeze little moments in time and share them with those around us.  Enjoy the POTW!

This is not to criticize the photographer, but I must critique the image ... I say image because I can't call this a photograph since it exists more as poster art, graphic art or something in the realm of cartoons, than what I identify as photography. This is what I am lately come to calling "Photoshopography" - if that is the aim then great, but would it not be best to have a completely different section for these types of images in order to discern between photography and graphic art? Rhetorical of course ... some might argue that photography has always stretched the boundaries of image creation through artistic and alternative processes, but for me this looks less and less like the real world than anything Man Ray ever did.

Best, Simon.

Simon, where would one classify the early work of Alfred Steiglitz and the photo-secessionist movement or later, the pictorialists and William Mortenson--or for that matter, even Ansel Adams first works, which many don't realize were pictorialistic in nature.

There is nothing here that has taken the image away from what photography has not been about since its inception--and much less so than those mentioned above, just manipulating what was captured to some end. If one makes a high contrast lith print from a negative, is it not still photography, a solarization, or some other manipulation by hand. Just because it is done with a computer, a tool we have at our disposal today, does not mean it is not a photograph. It has not lost its basic character. Maybe the push button transformation to a painting is another matter, but darkening the image and oversharpening it does not change the basic capture of light by the camera, only modifies in ways not dissimilar to other darkroom techniques of days past. We may not like some of the things that can be done that over process an image, like overdone HDR, but there is nothing not photographic about these things and bad taste, as was thought about the pictorialists in their day, doesn't remove the work from the realm of photography.

G'day John,

I don't disagree with your comments but I still hold to the view that there are different ends of the photographic scale that demarcate themselves between realism and alt process/art. Photographs that get heavy treatment through artistic processes cease to exist in the realm of mainstream photographic normalcy and instead move into a different category for me. That they started out as a photographic capture is undeniable, and technically they are photographic in spirit; but when a photographic image ceases to identifiably reflect the real world of the everyday, then it has taken a detour down a different branch of the photographic Arts and no longer can be strictly termed a photograph. It may be an issue of mindset, but when I look at POW, I am looking for photo realism rather than surrealism because these represent different ends of the photo spectrum from where I stand and ought to be appreciated as distinctly different entities.

Bottom line, I think most people still think of a photograph as something that reflects reality ... at the very least an identifiable reality in which they also exist. HDR and other 'effects' do not reflect any reality I have ever known, with or without substance abuse to kick it along. And I think this is where we get to the meat of the matter ... we are dealing with 'effects' here rather than pure photography. Did I say 'pure photography'? Oops ... I've done it now. ;-)

Best, Simon.

Simon, I can't help but read your comments here with some concern as to how you want to limit photography and what photography is. Certainly, personal opinion matters to the holder, but I think in the larger world your position might be indefensible.

This image, while highly manipulated, could have been substantially replicated with traditional, albeit complex, darkroom work. Contrast masks, Unsharp Masks (yes, this name comes from the analog process),burning, bleaching etc could have been employed to approximate this look. Although I thought this technique had some allure in the commercial world when I first saw it maybe 10 years ago, it isn't one I particularly want to see anymore, however, it is really a truly pure form of photography--just made much easier by the computer. Even HDR done so badly is just that, done badly, but is nothing different than someone who did a lousy job burning and dodging in the darkroom. We may not like looking at it, but it is still photography.

If we make statements like "ceases to identifiably reflect the real world of the everyday" or "as something that reflects reality" to define photography, we could really get ourselves into some issues with photographic history. As you said above, what about much of Man-Ray's work, or John Clarence Laughlin? Many workers went out of their way to create images that created their own reality through multiple exposures in camera and in the darkroom--sometimes like a collage and some like Jerry Uelsmann's seamless compositions. Important workers today have staged reality, like John Wall who also sometimes combines multiple "takes" into a photograph as does Gregory Crewdson. If we really wanted to extend that sense of "everyday real world", then one could even make the case against Ansel Adams' own work--look at the original print of Moonrise and compare it to the one we all know--one of them is certainly not reality--but neither is black and white!

I certainly understand what you are trying to say here, but I think you might be drawing the line in the sand just a bit to close into the core. Photography is something much larger and putting artificial limits on it, because the elements that were before the camera are presented in a manner we don't respond to, is very destructive to the creative process.

John,

There really isn't any need for concern. Any lines drawn in the sand are my own and I stand by them - sometimes the medium of internet discussion is entirely inadequate with regard to getting across the complexities and nuance within a reasoned argument. I am not negating the methods of various photographic techniques arbitrarily but rather asserting the same thing that the majority of people here are asserting, but with my own spin on the theme ... namely the image is over processed. You either like the result or not ... the reasons why are largely a red herring. If you ever make it to my porch, I'll shout you a few beers and we can take our time discussing the deeper issue of what I define as photography vs photographic art and why I see them as different animals.

Best, Simon.

I wrote this for another thread, but here it is again. I don't see it as a photograph, and I think by most, if not all definitions, it isn't a photo anymore.

"When one does photography, the moment one changes an image in such a way that changes the context or content, even slightly, it no longer resides in the realm of photography, but rather art (or maybe in some ambiguous realm where one can't fully decide). It can be explained mathematically for ex.:
PHOTOGRAPH + ONE STROKE OF OIL PAINT = SOMETHING NEW
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPH + PHOTOSHOP MANIPULATION = SOMETHING NEW
Whether that resultant image is art, a mistake, happy accident, or a waste of time I feel is only for the original artist/photographer to decide, but no longer is it it a photograph, or photography. Photography is only ONE element, ONE variable, in the equation.
A + B Cannot = A unless B is nothing where A = PHOTOGRAPHY
A + B = C"

***written in http://photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00WlNX

Slightly changing contrast and such doesn't constitute changing content, but if you hyper contrast something, then it does. Same with saturation, sharpness etc. I suppose the basis for judging it is whether or not the change made to a photo, and the resultant image, is something that is still feasibly perceptible in real life.

Ok, so then you say, "But what if the camera does it automatically and you don't do it with photoshop later?" Well, that would still assume that there is a primary image before the manipulation. Same rules apply.

As the son of a master print-maker myself, I know this image cannot to duplicated in the darkroom and is also why these types of images only started to appear with the use of digital manipulation. If you can prove me wrong, show me. (don't give me a name, but an actual link to an actual image please.)

Now that I know what this image is supposed to be, I'm not so critical of it.

As for not being HDR, it is still HDR. You just did some of the steps manually. The HDR system in Photohop for example only puts together all the tools in one spot to make it convenient instead of having to do it manually filter by filter etc...

Well, as a son of a Mechanical Engineer and the brother of an Astromonical Engineer, I can safely assert that means squat, but as a master printer myself, yes, this could be approximated in the darkroom, but here is the rub. Something like this never was created because of the complexities and no one having that sort of vision towards this in those days. Many trends and processes come with the times and when you couple that with the ease of play with photoshop, things can be stumbled upon with relatively little effort. The fact that it was done in PS doesn't make it undoable in the darkroom, but who would spend the energy at this time?

As to your definition of photography, it is apparently your definition and again wont hold up very far out of your own circle. Explicitly by your definition probably 99% of Ansel Adams' work is not photography. Same for Minor White, Brett Weston and many other of our solid predecessors in the field.

I realize that there are some traditionalists out there and always thought that was more of my own leanings, but this is just a bit over the top. David, you sound like you live in the photojournalists world where what the camera does, because Mr Nikon and Mr Canon say it should, is somehow more real than personal visualization by the person who made the image! No Canon or Nikon engineers were there, or Fuji or Kodak's if you're using film, to adjust the parameters to meet the scene before the camera.