the visual journey - gallery i Spirit Garden

<<<It sounds like these so-called purists take the shot and call it a day. Hats off to you if you can get that to work to your satisfaction.>>>

You're mistaken. Please re-read most of the posts. Very few were negative on the idea of manipulation per se. The negativity was about what the finished product looks like. So many have repeated over and over again that we are not purists and understand the desire to post process, and many of us do it extensively ourselves, whether in the darkroom or digitally. But that doesn't mean we like the results of all types of post processing. Hope that's clear. Thanks for listening.

Marc Adamus is a genious just as Ansel Adams, but technology has evolved a lot in the time passed between them, and Marc has taken the advantages of it, lifted landscape photography to a new level. But his work is hard to understand for average people, this is the reason this discussion has grown so big. But comparing Adamus's work with average photos anybody can do ( M Guenette) is a huge nonsense :))

We've arrived at the hyperbole-tossing event in our aesthetic Olympics. We'll be testing for steroids, so be careful.

Mr Szabo... i am exasperated by your slur on other landscape photographers. You Owe Ms Guenette an Apology. shame on you. while your work is very beautiful indeed (with your taste for graphics and illustration), i see no evidence in your portfolio that you're capable of Madeleine's style, which is consistantly extraordinary realism. read my comments on Marc, and think about it before you respond. my point is that Marc's style is manipulatively enhanced to present the effect of fantasy, and that it is cutting edge, and many will need to adjust their eyes to it. with regard to bringing art to "a higher level"; i don't believe that sort of criticism helps any photographer. dp
Doug... everyone is comfortable with editing in the darkroom; i'm simply addressing that Photoshop etc are capable of extreme experimentation that is just as valuable as darkroom, but different. dp

Donna,
I like what you're saying that Marc's fantasy picture is a cutting edge, but I find it's difficult to adjust my eyes to it. I like your example of a realistic rendition of nature! The picture is utterly simple in motifs and composition, but I find myself very attracted by it.

Donna,
I like what you're saying that Marc's fantasy picture is a cutting edge, but I find it's difficult to adjust my eyes to it. I like your example of a realistic rendition of nature! The picture is utterly simple in motifs and composition, but I find myself very attracted by it.

The only constructive criticism I have is that the light source looks artificial.  Perhaps if it were more subtle it would allow the viewer to wonder through the photograph more.  Otherwise I love the ethereal feel the image evokes.

I have some work here I'd love comments on.

Donna! i have no problem with other photographers, but some portofolios stand out above the crowd while others dont. i have nothing to apologize or to feel ashamed, not at all, it was my honest opinion. if we take so then many others in this discussion owe an even bigger apologize to Adamus. i admit that it was not nice nor polite to talk like that but still it was the truth. Madeline's realistic style is maybe better for documentary type, but nowhere near from artistic point of view. btw, those un-processed photos are also not quite real, reality is more colorful and the human eye has much wider dynamic range, reality looks different from an unprocessed photo, purists tend to forget this. and most of those purists who judged here Adamus's work also forget that in artistic photography are no rules or borders, an artistic photo doesnt need to be natural looking or realistic. this is the whole point. The only flaw of this discussed photo of Adamus ( and as well the other works of him) is that it dares to be different from the big gray mass of average, the author have a different way to see and show things. and this is disturbing for many people, especially the ones without artistic talent.

Zsolt... i have deep respect for the passion you feel for this Adamus piece.... however, what you refuse to hear me say is that this picture is not a bad work of art; it's just different in that it wants to reproduce the the effect of the painting medium. it's fine on its own, claiming itself as a photoshop digitally manipulated image; but it loses its appeal when you insist that it's better or more provocative than less processed landscape photographs.
..."reality is more colorful and the human eye has much wider dynamic range, reality looks different from an unprocessed photo"... this is a lovely thought you offer about the passion and emotion that the human eye sees and feels about its perception.. however it is no more provocative than a photograph that captures the subtlety of tones and light that recreate the "dynamic range" of reality portrayed in the Adams' seascape. the seascape does (or should aspire to do) all that photography does innately, which is to capture the subtleties that explode a scene for the viewer. the Adamus has very little tonal and lighting range; it's flat with only a few colors represented. the human eye sees so much more subtlety and detail. this is the wonder of painting... that with its brush strokes and variations of tones, light, and color, it gives us the subtlety of the human eye and emotions. the Adamus scene is a very nice and clean limited digital alteration of reality to evoke emotion.. my point is that it is different than the subtleties b&w photographs can capture of the tonal and light reality of the human eye that sees with such detail.
i offer a painting by George Bellows that, with the subtle realistic details, the dynamic range, created by his delicate brush strokes evokes from me a passion for nature far more profound than the more simplified Adamus digital attempt.

I believe that most of us appreciate classy photographs where softness of forms and shadows vary under a certain degree that's consequently been standardised by the highest authorities in art photography - MOMA. We are all adults here with some degree of wisdom and life experience. Personally, I love classy photographs because they nourish my soul - being inspired, feeling goose bumps and chills down my spine. Yes, I have to get my kicks! I believe it is in our nature to aspire to higher values in life, to nourish intellect, mind, noble feelings above a mere biological or material life.
Now, somebody mentioned above Avatar, for which I'd say that is a real entertainment watching it in 3D. I'd be very proud of myself if I worked on creating that movie too. This new visual technology is naturally belonging to teenagers, those who were born in the '90s. As well as digitally altered photographs like this one is perfect as a tool to engage young generations into photography. What's the better way than this - a stunning, artificially looking reality, almost like their video games, Wii, and what-not. Anyway, I was doing digitally altered photographs when I started photography 8 years ago. That was a phase where I experimented with my creativity in Photoshop. I'd completely change visual appearance of the reality. Today, looking back at my works, I see could have done it differently.

This is a toally electronically manipulated image,which suggests that the author has lost complete contact with reality...intentional or otherwise..and has absolutely nothing to do with going out and taking a photo.Post-processing is a method of showing what a photo COULD look like,under different lighting circumstances,and not for creating Disneyland...which Disney and others do very well...and can put on DisneyNet. John Hughes.

IMHO this is an art piece as opposed to a photograph.  Great technical skills in creating this piece of art - I am jealous.

Mark

Thanks all for your comments. The light source at the sun and around the sun and some of the nearby branches is real and strait from RAW. The rest is done with simple highlight dodging and burning. There was no additional saturation added, but the range of color was changed slightly. This is absolutely one of my most surreal pieces and it's intended as such. You can't imagine what a surreal moment it was being there! The forest is magical to me and there's magic involved to get this picture to look like this, but it wasn't any sort of days-long process in PS or anything. It was amazingly simple. Yes, the light looks subdued like a painting and not harsh like a photograph and that's intentional in this particular case. I appreciate all of your commentary except the guy who didn't like my title - come on, man! It's a freaking title! Let me choose what I feel best describes my experience and the piece, and know that it came from my heart and a passion for the place I captured, not a garage sale. That's just low.
Again, thanks! There is way, way, way more processed stuff out there than my work these days and it's very common to see that. There's also far, far, more photo-realisitically rendered stuff. I just do what I like, and here it was a more surrealistic rendition, and that's my choice as an artist.
It's always interesting to see how people perceive these things, because they are so often so far from the reality of what was done or not done to a photo. For example, someone linked an '07 shot of mine on the Nat Geo site to this and made the claim that it was so much 'more natural' looking, or along those lines In fact, the light in that photo was every bit as manipulated as this, and I would say more so - if you were comparing the two from their origins. It just goes to show that people really don't know what they are looking at from the same perspective as the artist, or from the perspective of what is real or not. And why should they? If you wanted to see what was real you would have been there!

I love this picture.  As a beautiful artistic rendering of a tranquil spot it is splendid.  The composition is excellent and I love the illuminating light source.