the visual journey - gallery i Spirit Garden

I don't think we should blame any result on any process, the processes are in the control of the individual and their vision. That doesn't mean some don't use "push button" processes and blindly accept the results but that is still on the individual.

I often take several hours, even days, to process an image and it isn't that uncommon to end up with 14-20 layers before I am done. In the mix there might be as many as 3 or 4 different image outputs (exposures or scans/raw output) layered to render different areas as desired (dynamic range and local contrast). The way one works an image or solves those dynamic range issues can also affect the saturation but there are always other tools that can be used to bring things back to a more realistic result. Even a contrast curve layer can increase saturation but just changing the "Blending Mode" to Luminosity from Normal eliminates the issue(often it is better to separate color adjustment from contrast adjustments when using curves).

Anyway, the end result, overcooked if that is what one considers the image, is the result of the operators interpretation not the process itself. Working an image for an extended time isn't over processing. Over processing is the look of an image and is often subjective.

In this case, I think the processing and look might be appropriate for those things I mentioned first in my remarks above but just seems a bit much as a fine art landscape image--although I am sure there are many who do like this sort of thing.

Although I expressed a reaction to the artificialness of the image in a different manner than Kristina, I find her concise evaluation in different terms (plasticity) very pertinent. The Fauvists used non-realistic colours in a manner to create beauty, tension, enigma, drama, emotion and other perceived values/qualities/symbolism in their paintings. The not very subtle chromatic variations that can be found in many works of the type of the present POW do little of that for me. They merely display what can be done with pixel manipulation software. I admittedly over-reacted with my term lack of "artistic spirit", for which I apologize, as the photographer obviously does have an artistic approach, as what I meant to say was that I do not consider this POW very communicative in artistic terms (perceived of course within my own subjective and cultural limits, which evidently do not appreciate the Kincaide-like approach or style).

I did ask Marc, a while ago, his "philosophy" while processing the photos. The answer was as follows;
"My artist's statement on my website has a section called "Photoshop in Today's Age" that talks about my artistic decisions in great detail. It answers your question and probably offers more insight into my study of artistic philosophy"

The title is "ARTIST STATEMENT" which emphasizes the word "artist". An artistic approach to photography can be achieved in many ways and he talks about his approach to that subject in the second part called "Photoshop in Today's Age". I was not surprised when I read his thoughts about the process of the photos as the statement is called "Artist Statement" where the photographer's interpretation is essential to the subject. He is writing there his approach to the photography as an "artist" with details. I recommend anybody to read his thoughts and learn his philosophy in order to appreciate him and look at his photos from another perspective.
Natural, artficial or whatever you think, it ends when you read the whole statement. No words, you like it or not, it is up to you. As a result I do have respect to Marc for what he produces...

Kani, thanks for referring us to Marc's web site statement. I agree with a lot of what he says and he puts it quite eloquently. I am especially empathetic with his idea of photos not needing to represent nature precisely but instead being able to express a photographer's emotions, feelings, and reactions to the natural world. None of this changes how I feel about his photo, what I've said about it, or my opinions of the work. That I appreciate someone recognizing the importance of individual expression doesn't necessarily mean I will appreciate the results of his expression and efforts.

My 2 cents worth, I admire the skill arc has, I admire the extents arc goes to to capture an image. A lot of people are in awe of marcs work because of these skills, however for me a lot of the images lack real emotion and conectivity to space. Skills in presentation and processing can be short lived with many trying to emulate the finished product. We see a lot of this here. I am not trying to be down on this work and certainl will not criticise the skills needed to capture and present such work. but for me it distances itself from a real emotional conection to the landsacape and takes us to the world of imagination. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and it is not always present in Marc s work. Perfection can be a fault, life is inperfect and glimpses of lanscape sometimes can reveal a greater attachemnt, a snippet and fleeting glance things that make that hman connection for me add strength.
Hope that makes sense to comenters.

Seems to me that a lot of Marc's pictures on Photo Net fall pretty comfortably into the realm of sci-fi fantasy illustration, and most of them are very expertly done. But this picture has a messy composition, with no real point of focus. It works neither as fantasy nor as reality. See "Catching Pool" (in the same folder) for a picture that has a clear composition and that makes better use of that oversaturated green.

Hi Stephen, I'd like to respond to your question. I once taught a workshop in which I needed to make reference to the style of viewing a scene that you describe. I called it "perceptual zooming". My suggestion to participants was that as photographers, we need to be careful abut this as it influences our sense of how large image elements will be when represented by the camera. So if one is using a 17mm lens, it's a good idea not to look directly at an element and act as if it will have the same impact in the image as it has when one is looking at the scene through the viewfinder.

But, this has no effect for me on why the processing of this image does not work. There is an airiness to this presentation (a lack of contrast and overall brightness) that is not experienced in real life. That's ok in itself I think. But add this to the hyper-saturated yellows and we start to get the impression that the objective is superficial and manipulative, not artistic or documentary. Now add this to the (sorry but this is what I think) silly sunstar effect (I don't object to sunstars but this modern kind of sunstar with massive elongated, thin extensions is just way over the top in my mind) and the impression of the entire image and the motivation behind making it is cemented as trickery in my mind. It seems to me that the processing is now very obvious and not done for any purpose other than dramatization.

Maybe it's that the scene looks close to real with some clearly added tricks. This makes the added tricks obvious and thus perceived as plasticky or manipulative.
But, there is always this sense that this style of photography is viewed as a lower form of art than others. I do have a theory that there is an inverse relation between the actual drama, magnificence, etc., of a scene and how artistic one will perceive the image to be. It's almost as if, by definition, an image with a fantastic sky can't be art. Artistic images are subtle in message, meaning, motivation, etc. So, in this case, the obvious drama and beauty of the image will mitigate against it's perception as a piece of art. Make sense? JJ

Many participants of this discussion compare/relate this image to a painting. Would it make a difference in perception of this image if it indeed was an oil painting? Would you think it's a good and interesting painting? Would you buy and hang it in your living room?

<<<Would it make a difference in perception of this image if it indeed was an oil painting?>>>

Yes. it would make a difference in perception. I can usually tell the difference between the two and that is a perceptible difference, more obvious in a gallery or "live" viewing than with screen images. Though they might both be visual expressions, I may have different expectations from each and respond somewhat differently to different mediums. To quote a cliché, the medium is (or can be at least part of) the message. The medium is integral to my perception and reaction to the work. It is integral to conveying and sometimes even establishing the content, mood, style, and many other qualities.

<<<Would you think it's a good and interesting painting?>>>

Good? Technically? Aesthetically? Emotionally? Don't know. Qualified "no" since I haven't seen the painting version, which would have differences, of course, to the photograph.

<<<Would you buy and hang it in your living room?>>>

No. I wouldn't spend much time with it in a museum either, painting or photo. There are some paintings and photos I love or can imagine I'd appreciate and would go to see in a museum that I wouldn't want hanging in my living room either.

Is the medium still a photograph? Or maybe the editing software is the medium due to extensive changes, and this image should be approached as a form of graphic art for which a photograph was only a starting point?

That's a classificatory discussion I'll leave to others. I'd rather look, respond, learn, and move on. What anyone calls it doesn't much matter to me.

No, why should it? The subject and how it is treated is the bottom line for me. Physical and surface textural differences (brush strokes, appearance of the paint or photo surface, purity or subtelty of rendering) are of some importance in enhancing or detracting from other content, but if the content or message of the image doesn't connect, those differences are relatively unimportant to my mind.

The question begs another: Would it make a difference in perception of this subject matter (well chosen by the POW author) if the present seemingly popular style in photography or art were substituted by some other photographic approach and art in making the image?

Possibly, for me, as the latter might have the potential to be more convincing with the same subject matter but a different perception and creativity.

Digital..post processing...surrealistic. It's gorgeous, yeah, but let's put it in perspective. Any one with any kind of camera could have taken the same "image", but...you would be hard pressed to create this image with film. Even in digital format, one needs to have computer skills in order to "fabricate" this image. I don't necessarily have any issues with that, but we should draw a line between photography and technical manipulation. The technical aspect of this image supercedes the "photographic" skills IMO.

With oil paintings, let's say French Impressionism, lots of liberty is given. People accept the painting if it less accurately reflects reality. On the other hand, people expect photos to more closely resemble reality. Of course, at some point, if a photo slips into the realm of being obviously unreal, then it begins to be accepted again as "photo art". I think the problem is that when a photo has just a little over-processing. That makes it neither here nor there and creates many of the kind of comments posted.

All that being said, I think Mark's work reflects his hard work in seeking, finding and capturing some amazing subject matter. His pictures always succeed in causing you to take a second look and I admire his work.

very nice!

This truly does remind me of Thomas Kinkade.  I see that someone else made the same comment.  I assume that this resemblance is intentional, correct?  I do not mean this in a disapproving way.  It is just that the similarity is so striking.

Great shot. From a quick scan of your portfolio this photo is perfectly inline with a definite style that you seem to have perfected. I'm jealous of al of the sites that you have found for some very incredible perspectives. I am torn between "over processed" and the fact that in order to overcome the stereotype that people expect to see in a photograph the usage of HDR techniques becomes necessary.

Perhaps this is the very thin line line that you have been walking with your art, the consistency in all of the widely varied shots speaks volumes as to your professionalism. I can't say that any are "overcooked" but I can tell that they are indeed processed as HDR simply because what is presented does not fall in-line with what is "expected" from a typical photograph.

I say keep it up, go for broke, and don't ever stop. No one can ever tell when a style breaks a barrier and becomes "art" or simply falls into the never-never-land of becoming "dogs playing poker." Although I think that much HDR work falls into the latter category it is actually up to future generations for the final determination.

I see a wonderful shot taken, most likely several exposures to overcome the extremes of light and shadows as would be the case if only one exposure was used. The camera captured a beautiful place, one exposure for the background would have caused a very dark foreground perhaps without detail, or one exposure for the foreground would have left the rays of sun totally blown out. This beautiful scene was captured because different exposures allowed the dynamic range of the scene to be captured. I think the style of his work is the places and scenes he finds and photographs are what may seem unreal. His post process is well done and I see nothing artificial about this scene, he just has a great eye for amazing places. I look to try and understand what is so over processed about this scene; trees are trees with moss hanging from them, groundcover, a stream, rocks and sunlight shining through the trees. The scene shows wonderful detail and lighting throughout. The lighting is what makes and photograph a better photograph and I see great lighting captured in this scene. Some may see an over processed look because of color, but one must first know that their monitor is properly calibrated. When you capture a beautiful light the colors are more vibrant, just look at some trees with the sun shining through them and you will see a vibrancy in the leaves that you would not see in tree leaves without sun on them. Frame a photo of what some term as a real photo and not over processed and then frame this photo and see which one sells at an art show. Most people want art not just a photo. He has a wonderful talent for finding amazing places to photograph and he has a great eye for lighting which makes his work seem magical.

<<<and see which one sells at an art show>>>

You hit the nail on the head. This is just the kind of thing that would sell at an art show and get high ratings on PN.

The way you've opposed "what some term as a real photo" to "art" hearkens back to the early days even before Pictorialism when people were claiming that photos were not art, so photographers started imitating the look of painting in order to help get photography accepted as an art form. Though I love some of the Pictorialist stuff, I'm also glad photography has come a long way since then.

That it's highly stylized and looks "arty" does not make it any more art than the most natural-looking and unadorned photo, not by a long shot, IMO. And that it would sell at an art show is even less of a compelling reason to consider it good art or interesting.

Sorry, too much Alice of Wonderland!

Are we to judge this image on how it might sell at an art show? I too, presume this would sell. Stuff like this is popular, like Kincade's well crafted but trite paintings.
I do not care that much that this image has been Photoshopped. Post processing was there before Photoshop. The only artifice I do cringe at is the blinding sunburst. If it were allowed to be a nature infusion of sunlight this might have been a better picture.
I do find the lax form and a cliched approach to nature more disturbing. Which brings me to a question.

Is this an actually garden? Or is this a park? Or is this the wilderness? A garden is an urban entity that is planned and pruned. It is in this sense artificial. Or controlled nature. This same is true of a park to a greater or lesser extent. (There are urban parks and national and state parks that are preserved open wilderness alongside amenities for visitors.) This scene does not look like a garden. If it is not a garden, why is the artist calling it a garden?

This is not minor quibble but goes to the heart of how the artist views the things that he photographs. Garden photographs are different from nature photographs in that they accent the handiwork of a gardener or gardeners. Nature photography is different. One is shooting the work of natural processes. When an artist confuses the two in his mind (I think this the case here) he is in danger of not understanding what it is he is looking at and idealizing what he really does not seem to understand. The result here is a scatter gun approach (get it all in) that leads to the cliched view of nature that I objected to earlier.

All the elements that score points and sell images like this by the yard are there. Missing is a clear focus that brings all of these elements together to form a lasting single effect. What you do have in its place is forced pictorialist view of nature as something warm and cuddly, which it is not. The title presupposes a Vision that goes beyond art and enters into mystical and religious. I won't delve into matters of belief here. I'll only conclude by saying that if a Higher Power does exist, He, She or It does not reside in Photoshop.

Images like this simply remind me how much I love film.

Alex, I think you are making too much about the word Garden, at least in your point of view. I think your analysis ignores the sense of a garden being sanctuary. Mythologically, we have the garden of eden and I don't think most of us think of that having a crew that kept it just so but rather more a place of harmony and peacefulness.

Here, Marc seems to be suggesting his seeing this--or maybe feeling this--as a spiritual sanctuary, I can live with that and I don't see it in contradition to any sense of landscape. Many feel the landscape is more than just something that exists, that it lives beyond just the plants and animals and there are also many places of power on earth that are recognized by both ancients and contemporary people.

I brought up the use of "Garden" in the title because I sensed the artist did not know what he was talking about and, hence, was not really comprehending what he was doing with his camera and Photoshop.

John A. writes: " I think your analysis ignores the sense of a garden being sanctuary."

First all, a garden is an enclosed space. Too quote Wikipedia: "The etymology of the word refers to enclosure: it is from Middle English gardin, from Anglo-French gardin, jardin, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gard, gart, an enclosure or compound, as in Stuttgart." This does not strike as an enclosed space; neither do the hands gardeners seem to have been at work.

Second of all, what does John A. mean by sanctuary and why does he equate it with gardens? A sanctuary is a sacred place usually within a church or temple or a place designated as sacred, and it is also a place of refuge. This might be a sacred ground or a place of refuge but that does not automatically make it a garden.

The artist may feel he is shooting and post processing sanctified ground but it is his obligation to show this through his art to us. I do not see anything spiritual in this image. I do see a burst of light, artificially induced, but that--mere pictorialism--is not enough to convince me.

John A. further writes: "Here, Marc seems to be suggesting his seeing this--or maybe feeling this--as a spiritual sanctuary, I can live with that and I don't see it in contradition to any sense of landscape." I have no problems with whatever the artist feels. He may be divinely inspired for all I know, perhaps by Saint Thomas Kinkade in Heaven. But I repeat--the artist has to effectively communicate this through his art.

I totally agree that people have special feelings for landscapes. But for the artist, the onlooker's customary feelings for a landscape can be a creative hinderance. The artist must go beyond mere awe to create a work of art. A truly good artist will avoid cliches, risking, perhaps, the viewer's misunderstanding.

In this image the artist has created a cliche. It is the sort of cliche that will sell. But still it is a cliche. I have argued that it is possible that the artist's initial vision was a cliche. Saying that, I am wondering what this image would be like if the artist wasn't thinking of gardens and spirits and it had been a straight shot, possibly in black and white.

Alex, I don't think we have any major disagreement with regards to how this image might be coming across in our own interpretation. What I was trying to suggest is that doesn't preclude the artist having a sense about a place that you or I might not have--we weren't there nor did we experience it. The use of metaphorical language to describe what is felt or sensed when in a location is something man has been doing forever. Whether he conveyed that feeling or not in the image is a different story but worrying about semantics is a diversion and not productive IMO.

The use of the word garden for certain natural environments is not uncommon--or the use of metaphorical language, in general, to describe landscape. I know I have been to several natural places that had designations as gardens with several "Devil's Gardens" being designated including one in Arches National Park. I have also been to Hells Half Acre, which is neither hell nor a 1/2 acre (over 300 acres) and have seen Angels Roost in New Mexico but no angels.

Again, you might not have a sense of garden or spirit here and that is fine but I don't think it is fair to suggest that Marc didn't only that you might feel it wasn't expressed. As I said in my own comments, this seems like a place where elves or fairies might reside to me. Spirit has a lot of different meanings to different people.