December in laguna- Early morning mist (Platalea leucorodia)

The cliche white sphere needs to be larger. The cliche silhouetted tree needs to be shorter. Then the cliche birds would sit lower in the frame and a more cliche aspect ratio would be achieved.

Out of all the photos by this great photographer, the elves selected this one as POW. May not be the right choice.

Supriyo, as you surely know, we are never supposed to criticize the choices of the elves, so maybe one could say that out the many shots of Giangiorgio, the elves chose one which they believe would be sure to provoke discussions.

Anders,
we are never supposed to criticize the choices of the elves - I am assuming, you were being sarcastic when you wrote this.
Just look at this discussion: http://photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/00dODx :-)

With more than 840 photos uploaded since his joining Photo.Net less than a month ago, the elves might have worked a little harder to find a less cliched shot. The particularly dark grey sky, notwithstanding any reality, is depressing. Giangiorgio may not have had any intent on an artful image, but he probably has more stimulating photos in his portfolio that might have been chosen instead.

Giangiorgio is a member since December 2005.

Lovely composure and misty mood, well captured.

Thanks Dieter. I read 2015 rather than 2005. Not a good omen for my observational capabilities in art and photography!

Thanks for the response, Supriyo. I suspect that this matter already has been addressed in the philosophy forum, but nonetheless I'll provide a brief reply. Rhetorical question - Is an image that is postprocessed to one extent or another less valid than one straight out of the camera?

Michael, I don't think Supriyo is saying that, but I'll let him respond. Here's mine.

NO! And I wouldn't refer to a composite as not a real photo. But I do see a difference, especially when it comes to the timing of things in a photo. Like Supriyo, if I'm looking at a photo where a bunch of things come together simultaneously, I will be very differently-affected if I know those things actually came together or if I know they were put together. That's because, for me, part of photography (not in all but in many cases) is its tie to the real world. That's why documentary photography and journalistic photography are so unique and have been so vital over the years, and I think a lot of art photography has some ties to being a document of something that happened (though obviously not all art photography does).

The composites I tend to like are the surrealist ones and the ones of people like ManRay that don't try to mimic a "straight" photo and instead overtly play with the idea of composite, seeming to readily admit they're composites, and instead rely on constructed juxtapositions for their import. There just seems something insubstantial to me about trying to mimic a real-world scene that relies on a confluence of events by putting elements in time together that didn't occur that way.

For me, it's not a matter of validity. It's a matter of substance and connection.

In the case of this photo, its being a straight photo wouldn't improve it for me. It would still be a meant-to-please cliché, pretty as a hallmark card.

"I am assuming, you were being sarcastic" (Supriyo)
I being sarcastic, never ! Dead serious, as always.

Thank you Fred, for your response. Yes, this is what I meant, but obviously you have put it in a very nice way.

I think Fred also brought out a very important aspect about photography, the connection with the real world. When I see a photo, if I like the photo, I imagine being at that place, observing the scene with my naked eye. I tend to envy the photographer for being there with his/her camera, experiencing the scene and finding the hidden gold. Later on when I realize it is a mimicry, all that feeling goes away. It is like being brutally awakened from a sweet dream. Of course, this wouldn't happen with a surrealistic works when you can clearly see it was 'composed' by the creator of the work, so that such works can be judged in their own merit.

To Anders: I see! You ARE serious. Let me wipe that stupid smile off my face.

I endorse what Fred and Supriyo said. The question of whether or not this is a composite is particularly apropos, since Giangiorgio's portfolio has several fascinating composites which, while clearly manipulated for illustrative purposes, are very nearly seamless. As I have said in other threads, our cameras and film do not see as we do, so it is appropriate to manipulate the final images so that they see what we saw, or reflect the essence of our experience, and communicate to the viewer the feelings we seek to share. I think this one is particularly perplexing because we don't know to what degree this image reflects an initial reality. If it is a composite, then it is disappointing because I want it to reflect an amazing reality. If it is as-shot, then I'm amazed at the vision that allowed this image to be captured. There's not much emotional room in between these two extremes, at least for me.

In my opinion and from my experience working with digital negatives, I think this image is not formed by superimposing several images. I think it's a unique shot, but I can be wrong, of course. All depends on the skills of the creator. Nor do I care whether it's a single image or are several ones. I only judge the final result, not the means to achieve it.

I have no prejudices in photography. I'm stunned. Perhaps for you, magicians are unpresentable and liars, don't ever go to a show. Magic does not exist. Shouldn't read Don Quixote, because as it's not a true story, not worth. You say: what is not a copy of reality is not worthy, just in any kind of Art (or just only in photography?, is photography a different Art or isn't any Art?

After reading this debate, my conclusions are quite negative and are the following ones: only truly valuable work is from a negative, other photography is under-estimated and under-appreciated, maybe for you isn't photography, but for my friend who works with oils, I'm not a painter, I'm a photographer.

In my view, know how to make a good photograph is important, but we must use the negative positively and constructively. We are not in the 50s, 40s, 60s and so on, not in the Middle Ages :) There is what is called digital, digital photography ... I mean digital, can be EDITED. This is the reality in 2016. There's sentimentality or just the camera to achieve a goal, to use rolls of film, but do not remain o-b-s-o-l-e-t-e.

There are photographers uploading negative resized, even with the name of the negative, I mean _DSC4445555, is the least creative I've seen in my life.

They have 100 negatives a week and then a photographer who loves editing the negatives, A MONTH ... just to upload 1 single image (!) To be underestimated (?) so much work?

Well, my experience tells me that in most cases, photographers who despise editing and working with negatives, several photos into one, most of them have no idea how to make those issues, but we (post-processers) do know how to take a photo with the camera. There are many books that teach us to use a camera in the best way. There are no books that teach us to create a work with the help of imagination and creativity post-treated. Thus, like it or not.

I respect all photography, but I do see that post-processed work is continuously despised :(

I did not come here to defend anything. I've got to study these days, maybe I'm getting short of time. I'm here to give my opinion and is: if this image of the POW is the sum of several or only a negative, leaves me indifferent. I'm not interested at all. I do not want the photographer to tell me his skills, they're his.

I use photography to dream. My dreams do not exist in reality. I am not for that reason worst photographer than anyone. I work with my digital negatives.

It takes me weeks to finish a scene and I desire not to be underestimated. Should have exist clearly different categories, all valid.

Well, I do not dwell more ... at the risk of being called "graphomaniac".

I'm philologist. Call a philologist - a "graphomaniac" is an insult and it's made on purpose. I was insulted here, in this image, in the pre-POW comments. I was despised and insulted ... and no one has asked me apologize, but I understand that the arrogance and bad faith of some people, must find a channel output, must find someone to insult or belittle to be good "barnyard roosters" and achieve their goals.

I recommend you not to write too long. If you expound yourselves on the photos of the interested person, you're philosophers. And if you write on photos of others, not interested ones, you are graphomaniacs.

Failure to improve much in PN. Too many roosters :) Not to be older in this forum, others haven't the right to insult.

Maybe in my case my sin is my photos, me I make. No pushy makes them for me. No rooster makes my negatives. I have no need, thanks to God! Something to be celebrated!

Happy day to everybody...

I think there is a difference between something that is clearly a composite and has no intention to deceive - such as your portfolio, Laura. This, however, confuses because we do not know which it is. In this case authenticity seems to be important, as the shot purports to represents reality directly, which is why the discussion has taken the turn it has.

Well, even in magic I might care about the difference between reality and fiction. For instance, it could be a problem if the magician really saws the lady in half. The magic show takes place in a wider context and that can matter. A photo takes place in a wider context and that can matter, too. For me, it doesn't always. Sometimes, I just enjoy the show. But there may be times I'll want to make sure the lady is OK.

Dear Laura,
Thank you very much for your long comment. I tried to follow it through, but not sure I picked up everything because it was too long. Nobody is insulting the photographer here. I even stated before that I think Giangiorgio is a great photographer. The issue is regarding the ethics of a certain type of work and whether it is proper to do so in the genre of photography.

Perhaps for you, magicians are unpresentable and liars, don't ever go to a show.
When I go to watch magic show, I know I will see magic. If there is anyone in the audience who thinks that what is being shown is reality and the magician has supernatural powers, then art turns into an instrument of deception.

After reading this debate, my conclusions are quite negative and are the following ones: only truly valuable work is from a negative, other photography is under-estimated and under-appreciated

Well, Laura, you arrived at the wrong conclusion. Fred (I also) stated in his comment that there is definitely a place for composite images for portraying the artists' messages through surrealistic scenes. However I can only judge such works in their own merit if I am clear about the means to get there, i.e. if it is digital manipulation or a straight image (more about this later on).

Here is what I find unacceptable: I envision a pretty image, but I cannot shoot the image for whatever reasons. So I form a composite and post it here. The clueless viewers (and newcomers who look up to the experienced photographers for inspiration) become amazed at what is supposedly an unique moment captured on camera. They post comments with phrases such as 'timing' and 'perfect moment', and nobody clarifies their confusion. So the work is passed along as the chronicle of a moment where fog covered the sun and birds flew past and a photographer was waiting there to capture the scene. I know that to many people it won't make a difference whether the scene was formed in reality or on the computer, but to me it does.

I only judge the final result, not the means to achieve it.
This can be proved wrong in many ways. Copy of a renaissance art for example is not of the same value as the original piece (the history and the origin matters). Story behind a photojournalistic image can be inspiring. Making of a movie is of considerable interest to the critics and public. Lip syncing in live musical performances is widely frowned upon, etc. etc.

It takes me weeks to finish a scene and I desire not to be underestimated.

You won't be underestimated, as long as the scene is not construed as a straight photo.

photographers who despise editing and working with negatives, several photos into one, most of them have no idea how to make those issues, but we (post-processers) do know how to take a photo with the camera.

You can't be more wrong. Many photographers know nowadays how to work with image editing softwares and they edit their images according to their own philosophy and ethics. That does not mean they don't know how to do post processing. I am myself not into composite imagery, but I don't think it would be a problem for me to combine several images into one in software. In your comment above, you are drawing inferences by looking at the surface without caring what goes on inside (like your comment about judging the final result, not the means). If one was to follow your line of reasoning he might as well say, that those who produce composite imagery without venturing outdoor do so because they do not have the necessary skills, which I am not saying by the way. I don't even want to go there, it becomes so nasty.

Each form of art has its own fuzzy boundaries and the dedicated forum for discussion. There is nothing wrong in combining photos with digital imagery to produce a composite work as long as it is stated accordingly. Otherwise where does one draw the boundary? You know very well, it is possible to produce a beautiful still life solely using photorealistic rendering without ever touching the camera, would you call that photography? I am a rendering artist myself, and I post such works to other forums, not here.

In short, my message is: composite art is welcome and appreciable when it is clearly stated so. If one thinks of it as capturing a real life event and later on finds out otherwise, that leaves a bad aftertaste, which is unfair to both the artist and the viewer.

Fred and Supriyo: There's a concept on which both of you have touched, which I hadn't considered in my previous post - the difference between abstraction and mimicry. This clearly has significant consequences.

For most, but not all, posters on PNet, English is their primary language. This reality places those who are not native English speakers at a severe disadvantage, and surely contributes to potential for misunderstandings. This is particularly true in the area of descriptive and critical discussions, where the nuances of meaning and emotion become very fine. I suspect Laura may have misunderstood our intentions, and further struggled to translate her own feelings into a language other than her own. Or, perhaps not. It is very difficult to know. What I do know is that I have not yet encountered anyone on PNet who is intentionally negative, antagonistic, or who depreciates the work of others. Some comments are challenging, and intended to make one think critically, but that does not define that they are mean-spirited or denigrating. After all, a critique is just that: a criticism, and we all routinely ask for and participate in critiques, here and elsewhere.

Laura, please, if you will, assume that we are honestly trying to share feelings, insights, and knowledge, and that our intent is NOT to be hurtful or demeaning to others. If we start from that premise we will all get along and benefit enormously from our association. If persons as different as Fred, Michael, Supriyo, and I can agree, then there's hope for this world. ;-) (Laugh, Fred, laugh.)

Here is a link to another image by Giangiorgio: "http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17436819&size=lg". This is essentially a seamless composite of many related images, but is beautifully illustrative of a natural event, and highly communicative. This is both beautiful in an artistic, aesthetic sense, captures a natural event, and documents multiple components of a scene. I am totally and completely comfortable with this image as a composite work executed largely in post processing, but firmly grounded in a set of source photographs. This image is an example of the strength of photography to capture and share one person's experiences with others, and this power is enhanced through the use of technology. Technology can also be used to deceive, and I perceive intentional deception as negative. As Laura notes, technology and skill can also be combined as an artistic medium, with the palette and canvas being purely electronic, and the paints the bits and pieces of source photography manipulated to form an intentional image and message. However, if someone uses technology to put me in a Nazi uniform, that is grossly and objectively offensive, at least to me. Perhaps the measure of our artistic acts is as much about intent and truth as it is about the art itself?

Ditto David's comment about language barrier. All the comments here related to the artwork are with the sole purpose of enlightening ourselves, not to attack the photographer.

Sorry I couldn't answer before, but I just did a musical test this afternoon. For me it's easier to deal with English here than to write a simple melody of eight bars in D minor where a question and a consistent response can be heard.

It's really easier for me to read English than to write, but I've got no serious problem to understand you all, if I've read Thomas Hardy, Christopher Marlowe, Emily Dickinson etc. in English, I think I can read what you write here. I'll try to be brief and clear. Given that the notion of length in written texts is somewhat arbitrary. For me what it may be short, for someone else it can be long or viceversa. I'll try to use quotation in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Dear Supriyo, you say:

Supriyo, my comment has got 3.244 words and your comment has got 3.614 so be careful about what you say, please check before... your texts are longer than mine. Never before in my life, I've counted words in a text, at university I had any problems with words... till I joined this forum (¡!)

Supriyo, you've got to follow my clarifications and read above the first comments to this image (pre-POW comments), in fact... the insulted one WAS ME... I never said it was Giangiorgio.

This is a gratuitous insult, that's beside the subject. I will traumatize if people keep counting words. I started to count myself, oh là là! I'm a philologist, not a "graphomaniac" ... Giangiorgio is a doctor, it never occurs to me to refer to him as "shaman"; I do not know if with the aid of this example you'll understand me better.

My son believes the woman is cut into two... he doesn't even ask himself about blood, pain cries or intestines everywhere (!) When my son looks at my composites, his eyes are wide open with emotion. His face is a poem. Photography is not only enjoyed by adults, there's a wide public.

I make composites and I hate surrealism. I live with my feet on the ground. Thinking that composites must be unreal or surreal images is a very poor vision. I totally disagree with you.

I will read Photonet bases again to see if it's compulsory to give technical details or say the secret data of the recipe. The photographer is not required, I'm afraid. When I saw his image, I never thought that "he was kidding". A tough assumption.

Let me say that most creative artists, do not spend the time of their lives dealing with the issue of copying. It's irrelevant. If an artist "creates", it's different from a phony, a bluffer. The latter does not go very far on his way. Do not enjoy, he/she get tired quickly. Art is priorly enjoyed. I have never stopped to consider these issues, sorry!.

Dear Supriyo, I've got in my portfolio straight photos and composites. Let's find out who's who... am I obliged to say how do I work my negatives? to say if it's just one or seven shots? I'm asking..., I've got to check Photonet bases. You're too sure about a too delicate issue, I'm afraid. By the way, I love to do composite and love to go outdoors to shoot as well, last time to the riverside. I even climbed a tree, a poplar.

I do not know... I'm astonished... believe me! I always use my camera for my images. I think Photonet is a place with room for everyone. I have always published here and nobody has told me before it's not a place for my photography. You leave me perplexe... I do not know what to think ...

Well, my point of view differs a bit from yours :) I've got composites and straight photos... and I'm not obliged to tell the details of my recipe :) I even don't try to deceive anyone. To make an artwork for me, means to begin walking a path... of which I know the point of departure but the rest it's an adventure even for me; when I see a work finished, it's like an "unexpected craft".

To everyone in general, I'd like to say that I appreciate your responses, may I agree to some extend or not. Thank you!

Before finishing I just want to tell you an anecdote: "One day, I'm not sure how it happened, I was on a bus headed to a conference, a religious event. Everyone sang religious songs out loud and I just moved my mouth ... ... to go unnoticed among so many "lambs" singing, at that moment I felt like a big wolf in sheep's clothing, hiding. Desiring to choke, howle and jump forward from that place. I have never felt engulfed by the overall feel of the dough; I have not been afraid to think differently.

So thank you for your opinions, but "I think differently".

Laura, just one thing I want to address is that you put a lot of emphasis on a so-called obligation to tell the details of a photograph's recipe. I don't think you or I or anyone has any obligation to tell their recipe, which is why I was uncomfortable with Supriyo's putting this in terms of ethics. I think ethics might come in if a photo is part of a specified competition and breaks the rules or the photographer intentionally lies about something in terms of the photo. But I don't think a photographer is generally obliged to reveal how his or her photo was made. I am strictly talking about what I may learn, either by looking at the photo or by hearing something the photographer CHOOSES to say about it. I stand by the fact that what I learn of its making may affect how I feel about it. Even the medium will affect that. If I see a street scene in a painting and I see a street scene in a photo, I may well react differently. To me, photos are photos and, as I said, they often come with that unique connection to the reality at which the camera was actually pointed, as opposed to a street completely fabricated in the mind of a painter. I can certainly understand that the aesthetics of a child would be very different. I wouldn't expect a child to have a necessarily sophisticated approach to how information might affect reactions to things like photos. I'm glad children watch fairytales and aren't saddled with their realness. And sometimes I like to adopt the eyes of a child when watching fairytales myself and suspend disbelief. But I am an adult with all the different filters and insights that may bring.

I just saw that you used the word deception, a word I didn't use nor would I unless the photographer told a lie about how his or her photo was made. To me, it's not about deception or about ethics. It's about how I look at photos and how different information may affect how I look at a photo. The making, for me, is often an important part of any art. The making is embodied in the result. The result is not separate from the making.

Fred:
Deception - perhaps a strong word to use in this forum. I used it in context of the magician example, not to describe the POW work. I take that back.

If someone misconstrues the making and in the process misinterprets the result, and nobody clarifies the misinformation ... I am not sure how to put that. Well, it is not a deliberate deception, but nevertheless somebody does get deceived.

In Mark Twain's words: "the silent lie – the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth."