NewYork_210308

So quickly putting aside the issue of digital manipulation, I would ask whether the manipulation was technically good. As some have pointed out, the artifacts of the blending are clearly evident, so my answer would be "no."

A more interesting question to ask is whether the photographer / digital artist was successful in his/her intention. Leon said this was the "creation of an idea." I'm not sure what the "idea" is intended to be. Is it simply a plane over the city skyline with a wide-angle lens, blended simply because now it is so technically easy to do? Or is Leon intending to say something about modern life and modern happenings with the photo?

But that's only half of the analysis/discussion. Regardless of what Leon may have intended, what does the photograph say to each viewer? What thoughts and emotions does it trigger? What story does it tell?

Good questions Stephen.
I'm not from NYC, but I am sure that those who are, indeed, most Americans (and I'm not one of them either), will immediately conjure up the devastating incident on 9/11, as I immediately did.
Given that airspace is now restricted over that part of the city (is it?) I would imagine if a plane flew over, people looking up would wonder what its motive was.
So here we have a picture that does that precisely, and putting aside all the arguments about fake/fraud, to me the idea of Leon's photo might be to make people remember. I might be wrong of course. It's all subjective.

While I certainly understand that some may have certain predilections regarding their own photography, why do we keep coming back to the redefining of photographic manipulations?

Everything about this image is photographic, even if one doesn't like it. The plane is a photograph and the setting is a photograph--where is there not any photography here? Yes, it has been montaged but it has been done so with the tools of the photographer to serve the vision of the photographer.

Whether one thinks this is a great photograph or not, can anyone actually say that either of the elements here--the background setting or the airplane alone would have been better without the other? It is the vision to put them together that made a much stronger photograph/idea. Would it have been better if the plane had been in the shot organically? Well, it may have or it may have been something different--or it may have been impossible to get such an image. Why does a photographer have to be at the mercy of the real world to transact his/her vision?

Maybe the most important consideration here is that most, until they knew it was a composite, seemed to have felt was a powerful symbol/image--exactly what Leon was trying to do and that is what art is about! The fact that it was composited doesn't change the visual impact of the image--this is a visual medium--but the knowledge of it does make some prejudiced against it--not too different than many things in this life/world I guess.

I'm an American, though not a New Yorker, but I never associated this image with 9/11. Since I live and work within a few miles of at least four airfields (San Francisco International Airport, San Carlos Airport, Palo Alto Airport, and Moffett Field/NASA Ames Research Center), I'm used to seeing jetliners, small planes, military aircraft, and helicopters flying overhead, often quite low since they may have just taken off or may be on final approach.

I may be atypical, but it may also be that most Americans, at least those outside of the New York/DC area, are less obsessed with 9/11 than you might think. At this point I'm mostly just tired of seeing the subject dragged out in defense of every assault on our civil liberties that our power-mad Orwellian politicians and bureaucrats can imagine.

Stephen, you posted your last entry while I was typing mine but I have some answers for you.

First of all, the artifacts were seen at 400% and only indicate that there was indeed a composite--not that it hasn't been done well. How many images do we, or should we, look at at 400%? The image as presented, to my eyes does not show any artifacts and so I would conclude that for this purpose (posting on-line) the composite was done well. The technical issues in the image are actually the light direction on the plane is off ( scene light is from the top and slightly left of the image while the plane light is almost dead middle right-see shadows of wings and lighting on the right of the fuselage including tail section) and then Leon's own pointing out of the halo's at the buildings edges.

I think most people got the idea of this image. It is New York and a low flying plane. Whether that was specifically Leon's point doesn't matter, it is a powerful symbol to many people. I don't personally get a feeling of the plane surrounded by buildings but flying over a gap in them--maybe that is what Leon was after. The choice of using New York as the setting does change the symbolism here IMO as it would be totally different if this were even Los Angeles or Chicago.

Planes are allowed to fly over NYC.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2320673/

_________________________________

I don't think it makes sense to assume across-the-board reactions to manipulations. Sometimes montages work as montages and sometimes the fact that something is a montage detracts from what the photo is telling me or showing me.

In some cases, a significant aspect of a photo is my sensing that I'm seeing a particular confluence of events that actually occurred. So, with SOME photos, when I learn that this confluence of events did not occur, it may change my response.

Photographers have been manipulating things for decades. I don't need a new name or classification for it. I love some heavily manipulated work: Russian Avant Garde, ManRay, the surrealists . . .

Yet there are some photos that, when I find out they are two photos that are made to look seamlessly like one, it does change how I think and feel about them. I can't divorce what I see from how I feel and what I know. So I don't accept the idea that there is some purely "visual" thing to relate to that has not changed with my new knowledge that it's a montage.

One of the reasons the surrealists, ManRay, the Russian Avant Garde works is that they're not necessarily and not just fooling me. They're asking me to look differently at the world. To be fooled by a photographer is sometimes great, enlightening, and sometimes simply deceptive. Again, it depends on the content and the photograph, not just on whether it's a montage or not.

It's pretty clear what ManRay was up to. He makes no bones about it. Frankly, I'd find the above photograph much more creative if the photographer had made it an obvious montage and worked creatively enough to get that to work for me. Just pasting a plane into a position where you would normally find it in the real world and trying to do so to make it seem like the plane had actually been there doesn't speak to me of a terrible amount of vision or creativity.

I think if you can work with trickery, montages, strange additions to photographs, etc. in such a way as to be honest about it and still have it work, you've got something. Doing it, however, and trying to cover your tracks, can be another matter. It often just comes across as dishonesty and deception, though it certainly doesn't have to be and is not, in all cases.

There's plenty of "fakery" that goes on in the processing of photos, from dodging and burning to adjusting contrast severely to lots of other things. Look at some of the harsh, almost graphic photos of a Japanese photographer like Moriyama. His stuff is manipulated but I don't think of it as "faked." My eye almost immediately accepts it and his technique certainly seems to view his content in a unique and expressive way. Yet, if I think about it for a minute, I realize it's been enhanced and simply don't care. As a matter of fact, I'm impressed. He's not trying to get away with something. He's putting it out there, yet in a way that integrates easily and fluidly but doesn't pretend it's something it's not. That's a kind of manipulation I can get behind.

In such cases, it obviously isn't the visual itself that is then enticing you, but some additional context overlaid to what you are seeing. That is totally understandable. My comments were aimed more at what continually seems to come up in the POW not just this week, but in general. That images are accepted and often appreciated until they are determined to be digitally assembled. I am suggesting that that is a bias that is separate from the image--and in many cases should be.

Another issue is the idea of fakery or deception. I don't think that most people create these sorts of montages with the idea of deceiving anyone. They are created to fulfill a visual end--regardless of how creative we may feel they are. We may feel betrayed because we took it for real but unless it is presented as specifically representing the facts, we should personally own that sense of betrayal and not berate the photographer. Painters paint real scenes and change aspects at times but we don't expect them to file a disclaimer, why should a photographer. Certainly photography has that sense of the real but I think that proverbial horse left the barn a long time ago.

The first time I saw Gursky's "Bahrain I" I neither new anything about him nor the image. I was intrigued by the image and certainly had my own suspicions that it wasn't a straight photograph, but I still liked it. There was no disclaimer posted regarding how it was made by the museum and later I found out that the race course depicted has been radically changed as is customary for Gursky. How it was made wasn't an issue other than as a curiosity and I still gravitate towards it when I go there and see it again. Maybe we should have to write on the face of our images that we "faked" them? Or maybe we should think about redefining what is "fake" when it comes to an image.

My point isn't that one should have to like an image that is montaged or not appreciate an image that has been captured in camera, but we should understand that we are in the business of creating images to fulfill "our" vision and not meet someone else's criteria. I think there can be growth if we can separate the two and appreciate an image for what it presents rather than how it was made.

Very true. I agree that it often simply betrays a bias or prejudice, especially because it's DIGITAL, which is simply the contemporary way of doing what's been done all along, though it obviously has its own differences as well, which most "artists" will explore and embrace, not look down upon. Hey, some people still haven't accepted digital streams of music and are riding around with 8-tracks in their VW bugs. Groovy!

I have no problem with the photo-illustration presented. It's a neat visual idea well presented. Anyone who has shot buildings in the city with a wide angle lens would see that the plane is far too large in the scene to be real. As a studio table top photographer, "faking" elements in a photo-illustration is common. In the old days, I would hire specialists to retouch transparencies and strip in elements. Today the photographer can do it himself. No matter if it's a photograph or a photo-illustration, it stands on it's on feet as a good visual idea with a strong graphic appeal. It will be a worthy addition to the photographer's portfolio.

I'm not sure why people look down at commercial type imagery or photo-illustrations because they're not"real". It's just another type of image making and another way to express visual creativity. My approach to critique is to not worry how an image was made, but how it moves me. Does it speak to me. Does it have the visual impact to grab my attention. I don't compare the image to other works in their portfolio or to other photographers work. I let the image stand, or fail, on it's own merits.

If nobody would have told me it is manipulated, I would not have noticed. Yes, the plane seemed a bit big, but I've not yet had the luck to visit NY, so what would I know. The whole discussion on manipulation hence does not change much about the impression I have of this photo.
I refrained earlier from commenting, to give myself a few more looks, but I keep coming back to my initial impression. It's a good photo that leaves me rather cold.
Technically it's all sound and well done. I've got no problems with the fish-eye distortion; no fan of it either but for this scenery, it works well. As a composition, it works well. All lines inevitably draw my eye to the plane; this is what I like best about this photo. It's very strong and unambiguous in how it guides the viewer to see the remarkable bit - the plane.
Except that I do not find it that remarkable to see a plane above a city with a large airport. So the surprise is to me a bit unsurprising.

What I dislike in the composition is the fact that it's not very symmetrical, while I think a photo like this would be very well served with it. The bottom part shows more of the street (well, close to that anyway), and also left/right it's not divided very equal. This is the only bit where I find it more difficult to forget it is a composite; if it was made in one shot, it would be easier to forgive because of the "spur of the moment". I know it's difficult to get real symmetry in the real world, but especially on the vertical axis, it should be tried in this case in my view (so, lens pointed up straight to the zenith).

Sorry this all sounds very negative, it's not a bad photo nor a badly executed one. It just does not speak to me.

As Starvy Goodfellows said in the POW Discussion, This has a special meaning for those in NY. As a NY'er it sends chills down my spine. For longer than one might think, whenever I saw that type of plane overhead, after 9/11, it gave me the willies.

That being said, the picture is very effective. I would not cut off the bottom part of the picture because it leads the eyes to the plane. The plane sort of hangs there, overhead.. Well done.

Not to get too Freudian, but I do find it interesting that the only person who uses the term fraud is the photographer himself. 3 times. I like the image. I find the strength of Leon's response odd given the non-confrontational tone of the posts that precede it.

Steve
at no time I looking for confrontation.
this is a constructive and positive debate.
Regards

Steve Marcantonio said:
"I find the strength of Leon's response odd given the non-confrontational tone of the posts that precede it."
To which Leon denied he was looking for confrontation.
Instead, he wanted positive and constructive debate.
I don't disagree with Steve's perception of the posts in relation to this photo. There have been many constructive comments.
Forgive me. I am new to Photo.net and don't want to step on toes, but a mystery remains for me. I think it's an interesting, perhaps important issue.
While to some, my raising this issue might seem trivial, but the discussion keeps returning to the issue of 'fakery', rather than concentrating on the merits of the image.
The mystery: I could have sworn there was at least one post a day or so ago, (in Spanish), that congratulated Leon on stirring up some controversy. The other post I seem to recall, merely applauded Leon's photo. I used Google to translate, so it wasn't a figment of my imagination.
I can't recall, however, if Leon responded in agreement or not.
However, it seems those posts have disappeared. My question is why?
Perhaps Leon himself (or the webmaster) can confirm or deny the existence of those posts?

Michael,

A couple of key reasons for deletions of posts on the POW forum are listed in the guidelines for posting to this forum. Much more leeway is given comments on individual critique pages. But the POW is often more tightly moderated to enhance the level of discussion. The ones quoted below seem to be the two guildelines not adhered to which result in deletion.

From the guidelines:

Michael F
I can assure you I do not delete any post.
Regards

Howdy folks,

As has been noted, the POTW discussion is not the place for "great shot" or "this sucks" comments. Nor is it the place to debate the "worthiness" of a POTW choice or Photo.net policy behind the POTW.

The POTW is for indepth discussion of an image that has been chosen as being worthy of discussion.

When comments that don't fit the POTW guidelines are posted, they are deleted and an email sent to the user explaining the idea behind the POTW discussion and inviting them to repost their thoughts. Users who repeatedly make posts that don't fit the guidelines will be blocked from posting in the POTW discussion. But most people aren't trying to be a problem and are just a little confused about what the POTW is and is not.

Going forward, please direct all comments or questions about the POTW system or comment moderation to me via the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page. Any further discussion on this thread will be deleted as it detracts from the discussion at hand.

Thanks!

My apologies.
Thanks for pointing out the guidelines to me.
Much appreciated.
Michael
PS, if Leon gets to read this, it needs to be said that I certainly wasn't suggesting he removed any posts (how could he?). Can we let it go now? ;-)

Poco puedo añadir. En mi opinión es simplemente perfecta y oportunista. La curbaturas de los edificios, la posición del avión, los colores, el detalle, ... Felicidades Leon una gran imagen.

Poco puedo añadir. En mi opinión es simplemente perfecta y oportunista. La curbaturas de los edificios, la posición del avión, los colores, el detalle, ... Felicidades Leon una gran imagen.

I do not believe that a digitally manipulated image like this one is a "fraud" or a "fake", as long as the artist lets us know the image has been digitally manipulated. It is fiction, an accepted art form visually as well as verbally. I write fiction. I create imaginary people, imaginary conversations and imaginary situations and don't feel the least bit guilt about it. That my stories are made up is understood; and understood as well is the fact that I am not trying to fool anyone.

But as far as this image goes, whether it is digitally manipulated or not is moot because it is so innocuous.

This may be begging the question, yet I'll say it anyway. If the artist chose to digitally manipulate this image why didn't make it more interesting? He could have at least fixed the barrel distortion?

This is a essentially another pictorialist and novelty image. And the question I posed last week applies here: What is left once the novelty wears off? What is left for me, at any rate, is the excellence of form--specifically the buildings seemingly reaching out for the airplane. But this is not enough for me to want to come back to this photograph again.

I said before the that the barrel distortion kills this photograph. I'll explain why. This is a photograph that imitates verisimilitude. In doing so, it should be consistent. The distortion violates the imitation of verisimilitude. In doing so, it ruins the illusion and, therefore, it is an aesthetic value.

This aside, I believe that this would only be a mildly interesting image if the flaw I spoke of was corrected. Good form is not enough. The image, like any image, requires an epiphany. How has this photograph changed your life or altered your view of reality, however minutely? My answer to this is--not a jot. I've seen enough of tall buildings and low flying airliners to be in the end not impressed.

If anyone disagrees with this, please don't write stuff on the line of "The distortion works for me" or "I don't have a problem with the distortion." Please tell me why the distortion is an intrinsic necessity to this image. I bet you can't.

Alex, fiction has relationships to reality just as photos do, though the impact of photos sometimes relies on our ability to assume a real-world event and connect to that. (NOT ALWAYS: there are obviously photos that are purely fantastical, and those don't usually make you think you might be looking at an event that actually happened. There are even photos that are not fantastical but which don't really rely on a particular confluence of event having occurred for their impact. But some photos do rely on that actual occurrence for impact. A lot of non-documentary, in the formal sense, photos have an element of documentary that gives them a certain kind of meaning and depth.)

As for fiction, Dickens had a lot of imaginative leeway in describing London. But if his imagination told him that London was a city with no clock towers and was sunny throughout the day on most days of the year, and that's how he had described London, the reader who knew London might want some internal explanation for why he was taking such imaginative liberties. It would only make sense if he continued describing things as they were not throughout the book. Otherwise it would just seem to be an anomaly or error.

By the way, I agree with you that stating that this is a montage would have been welcome.

Here's my tongue-in-cheek, PN-style answer to your last question, meant only humorously (I happen to agree with that part of your assessment of the photo):

It's not an internal necessity. Art (the word art, on PN, means "excuse for anything") is not born of necessity. The reason it work is it's all subjective. LOL. [end sarcasm]

I guess the question this raises for me is to who? And maybe why? The problem with the question to me is that it suggests that the person didn't do what they wanted to do. Like the image or not, Leon had a vision HE wanted to convey and he did so.

Well, actually that is a creative decision not a rule of the road. Quite honestly, this distortion can't be fixed without compromising the quality of the image. I have a diagonal fisheye and I correct distortion all the time and am rather good at it. But the amount of correction such a lens requires ruins the image around the perimeter (quite far in actually) even on large MP cameras where there is more tolerance to distortion correction.

As to the distortion, my initial comment in this thread suggested that this image had a commercial feel to me due to similar subject matter I have seen in advertisements. Many, if not most of those, use this same sort of fisheye approach. It exaggerates things and creates a visual that is not "ordinary" in the sense of real--was reality a tenet of this image? In the late 90's thru 2000, I personally used the diagonal fisheye for a lot of my commercial work--several are on my website. I used this on 3 different MF systems and clients loved the look although it can certainly create very odd and unpleasing images as well. Here, I think it was used in a way that is complementary to its design. Although I have never used it the fine art work I have posted, I do experiment with it on various occasions. I think it is a tool in the arsenal and for commercial images it can work well while in personal work it has to be more integral to the intent of the work than just a visual grab. I do think it works as a visual grab to many, although I personally am indifferent to it here and my own thoughts on the image were in my first post.

the image is part of an individual's vision of creative inspiration...manipulating an image, compositing within an image is part of artistic vision and has been since cave art...great vision...regards....David

Nice (very) wide-angle shot.
I like the image distortion and composition of course.
The elements in the bottom are however quite distractive.