December in laguna- Early morning mist (Platalea leucorodia)

Fred, I agree with what you've said ... PLEASE can anyone make a quotation, where I've used the word "deception"; I think I have not used this word here, I've used "assumption" and "kidding" referring to an action that I do believe it was not the photographer's original intention... I can not find it on my replies. Please!

Laura, I think Fred was referring to me, not you.

Laura, I just spent some time with your portfolio, and perhaps I can share some thoughts. First, you are clearly a talented and insightful artist. Your work demonstrates skill in combining photographic elements to create unique and engaging works of art. While they are not all to my taste, I acknowledge the investment you have made as an artist in creating these works. The thing which characterizes your work is that I experience your images as intentional works created using multiple sources and reference images. I think this is what Fred and Supriyo are trying to get at. That your images are honest about your intent, even if your artistic processes are a mystery to us. For me, I like to make landscape and architectural images. My process is much simpler, and is concentrated in trying to bring out the characteristics of the latent image that best describe the scene as I experienced it. So, I manipulate the exposure, saturation, color balance, and crop. I do not consider this as dishonest because my intent, and, I hope, the outcome is to make an image that conveys what I saw and felt at the time I made the capture. Giangiorgio has a well demonstrated ability to capture and develop images of nature that are extraordinary in their clarity, insight, and in the obvious effort invested to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills and equipment to make wonderful images. He also has the skill to manipulate and combine those images into new, engaging, and communicative composites that tell a story no single image ever could. I have come to trust that his images are intentional and honest. If he were to use his skills to make an image that intentionally deceives, that pretends to be something it is not, I would find that far less engaging. Just as the objects in Salvadore Dali's art are represented unrealistically, but honest to his message, the honesty and intent of Giangiorgio's images is appreciated. The same goes for your own work.

I am reminded of a silly movie, Galaxy Quest, in which an alien civilization has intercepted transmissions of a sci-fi TV series, taken them as truth, and organized their entire culture around this framework. When the truth is revealed, who is the villain? The intended audience knew the truth from the fiction, in keeping with the show's intent. Who's fault was it that beings without contextual knowledge misconstrued the message? Consider as well the opening scenes of the movie version of The Da Vinci Code, as Professor Langdon presents examples of symbols which have both positive and negative associations, dependent entirely on context. Which associations shall we apply to our own perceptions? I come back to my previous statement, that our positive or negative perception of Giangiorgio's POTW may rest as much in his perceived honesty and intent as it does in the skill or artistic execution of the image.

Laura, you used it (in bold italics) in your previous post (made today at 5:52), the 4th paragraph up from the bottom of that post. Here's the full paragraph, and it was in response to what Supriyo had said.

____________________________________________

Life!

I'll see your Mark Twain quote and raise you a Pablo Picasso quote: "Art is a lie that tells the truth."

Art is a bit messy and doesn't always have terribly clear lines to work with. Though I've mentioned photography as having a basis in the real world that can be important to me, a photo (just like any art) can be in great part a fabrication. There are many portraits that don't necessarily represent the person as they are in life. Sometimes, they just use the person to make a different sort of statement, rather than tell a truth about the actual person. Think of many German Expressionist portraits, for example, ones that make people look scary, with dark menacing shadows. Those people are not necessarily scary yet that was the aesthetic the photographer wanted to express. I don't always need a clarification telling me if the person was really like this or not. If I get that information, it simply gives me more information with which to understand the photo. Rather than feel deceived, I might simply marvel at how the photographer took the reality of a situation and transformed it into something more fictional. It all depends on the photo, the work of art, and lots of other factors going on with the experience of it.

There are lots of cases where we learn stuff we didn't already know, like the situation you mention of someone misconstruing the making of a photo. It's happened to all of us and in many cases we still don't know it. Again, that's life. I bet a lot of people don't know that Mozart didn't finish his Requiem and that they're listening to a student's completion of what Mozart started. I don't know that they should take this as a silent lie or something on the continuum of but less than a deception. It's just a new piece of information. When I learned it, I took it as an opportunity to go back to the Requiem and see if I could learn something from now knowing the parts that Mozart didn't write. See if I could tell a difference. Or consider if I think Mozart would have finished it differently or if I would have.

Think of all the people who look at some of Van Gogh's flower paintings and don't realize how much the red has faded over time. When they learn this, do they think of themselves as having been in a state of deception, or something not as extreme as deception but like deception? Perhaps. But that might be a glass half empty reaction. When I saw a recent show at the Met where these original paintings were hung and the faded red was talked about and reproductions that showed what they may have originally looked like were on display, I took it as a realistic opportunity to increase my knowledge and change the way I look at old paintings. Fading colors are part of the aging of paintings.

We all look at photos in books and, when we see the actual prints in galleries, we realize how much more there is to them. That gives us more information with which to understand the work but it doesn't have to put us in the position of skepticism or suspicion about everything we see in books.

These things, to me, are neutral facts of life, potential sources of learning, and examples of how nothing in art is clear cut. This is not mathematics. David Hockney has put forth a theory, and it's well researched but still controversial, that some of the Renaissance painters actually used something like a camera obscura to project images on the canvases they worked on. I don't think he's doing this to show that we've been deceived all these years. I imagine some people will look on this and think those painters cheated in some way. I doubt Hockney thinks that. I think he's just doing it out of an interest to learn how things have been made throughout the centuries, as well as to establish a relationship between photos and paintings, something he's played with a lot throughout his career.

Dear David, thank you for your compliments and for reviewing my portfolio. I believe we share many points of view. You say:

In the end, the artist always wants to convey to others what he has seen and felt at that moment. Then settings or changes that are needed to accomplish this task are valid, but we can't conceal that we've used extra-aid to present to others our final result. I believe it's important to review the portfolio of each POW photographer, in some way it's the best to have been chosen as POW, and the comments and insights. It is possible to make our work be reached by more people interested in the same concerns. If a photographer is honest and loves photography, it's shown in his/her portfolio. All their efforts and dedication and trends and tastes in art are there.

Dear Fred, I used the word "deceive" because at first the idea that the photographer wanted to "deceive" intentionally or not, was emphasized. Hence, it came to me the notion of a possible "deception". But I'm convinced there is no room for these terms when it comes to people who appreciate art and have dedicated many years to develop themselves in photography. It makes no sense. Better to speak of "doubts" about the process of creation or "misunderstandings" or "uncertainties".

When you talk about German expressionist portraits, you say:

... most of the times models used in photos are like empty vessels to be filled with the juice of the author. I've seen models with a plate over their heads filled with artichokes and cauliflowers... and deep inside me, I was totally convinced of the idea that perhaps that person felt quite ridiculous, but he/she had no problem in helping the artist to express their feelings. Models have great merit, often being anonymous, not quite valued. I would be unable to put artichokes over my head, my personal aesthetic prevents me. I guess for them is a job that aids to earn their living.

Positive clues:

- About old paintings
Photography is art and always will be (Sean O'Hagan)

The “photography is not art” debate is so old it’s hardly worth revisiting.

However, I would draw attention to the fact that many photographers are busy using textures to make their images look as if they were old paintings. As we see surface of oils today is in a state of disrepair, as well said by Fred. All those cracks, flaws ... were not wanted by its author originally. It is for this reason that today, in my latest works I have much rejection for the use of textures that implement the image, and even worst in resembling an old painting.

There's a road, halfway between the imitation of an old painting and a straight photo from the negative, which is amazing if developed and studied. Here in this field, I want to work nowadays. It's a path that has more to do with the composition of an image and its colors, than with its texture. The use of textures makes pixels improved and implemented. I have had failures in colors due to depth of pixels, but I still refuse to use a texture to increase pixels. I prefer to increase my computer's memory and processor to be able to further improve the negative working alone with it, ie. number of bits, and with nothing else. The tip is not in adding and adding, but handle more depth of details.

- About post process work

Fred, when you talk about Mozart's requiem:

Great creators needed help to carry out their great projects, if not intellectual help, a material one, on the spot. Many old musicians, half deaf, half-blind ... needed help. Paint a chapel is too much for a single pair of hands alone, but is little stuff to develop for a great creator.

When I've said that many photographers, they do not know much about the prost-processing, I didn't do it with pride or in a negative way. It is true that sometimes if one has been lucky enough to be helping a great creator, he/she has used us as disciples, one realizes that it'd be difficult to reach conclusions and certain ways of working just alone. Access to being next to a great creator, is undoubtedly a privilege. It helps us to understand the process and stamps a seal forever.

I developed my own techniques over time, my own way of seeing things and working with my materials, but I think being at the beginning next to a great photographer, who works post processing in an amazing and unique way, his influence will always be with me. I understand is not the same if one has not known closely about the work of these people.
That disciple could not have finished the work of Mozart, if he had not been at his side.

Just today I saw the Photo of the Week chosen by Photo.Net and it was a surprise also for me.

I was amazed that the photo has attracted so many comments on the fact if it was or not a composition.

It is effectively a composition. The picture was presented in the Photo Contest "Capturing December" which asked to capture the essence of December. I live in a region with mild temperatures even in winter, the snow falls once every ten years and the next day is already dissolved.

That morning it was a particularly cold day with a mist that enveloped the country and masked the sun, for me it was the right atmosphere to represent the essence of December. I took several photos during the passage of flocks of birds that were moving in the nearby lagoon. Unfortunately for the low light some were very moved. I wanted an image that would represent well what I saw and I wanted to convey and in post production I replaced the flight less moved. I do not know if I have reached the goal of representing the essence of December, which was the theme of the Photo contest. In my portfolio there are clearly other images obtained with composition, sports photos, macro with focus stacking and other digital alterations made for fun, not wanting to deceive anyone.

The manipulation of photos whether for artistic purposes whether to manipulate the reality has always aroused extensive discussions between the purists of the negative that has to be printed as it is. The event of digital admits more and more post processings for the contrast, dominant color, clarity, perspective correction etc.

The prestigious National Geographic magazine who has never admitted retouched photos, the latest issue presents the stunning photographs of National Parks made by the photographer Stephen Wilkers obtained with the fusion of the details of hundreds of photographs taken over 24 hours, I recommend to admire them.

Photo.Net is a great opportunity to compete with other photographers, admire their works, draw inspiration to try to improve, to accept constructive criticism and to exchange as well as on this occasion so many comments that should not be offensive towards the opinions of others. I am very grateful to all of you Fred G, Anders Hingel, Robin Smith, Supriyo Bhattacharya, Michel Linder, David Triplett, Endof Days, Dieter Schaefer, Arthur Plumpton, Robin Smith, and especially Laura Marco for your warm participation. I apologise for my poor english.Giangiorgio

Giangiorgio, this really is not a debate between purists and non-purists. In my case, it's been a response both to your photo and to Laura's original claim (which I sense she's walked back a bit because of this honest discussion) that considering the result of a photo is separate from considering the means of production. I'm not a purist who has love only for the original negative. I'm a realist who understands that a photo composite can have a different effect on a viewer than a non-composite, in terms of the viewer's relationship to the scene or event photographed. That's it. We don't have to turn this into a typical vapid Internet debate about whether or not post processing is good or bad, acceptable or not. That's the easy way out. More difficult is to consider that the means of making a photo has an effect on the final product and becomes part of the expression of the photo. That I recognize the effect of making a composite and I think it was not used well or executed well in this case says absolutely nothing about how I view composites in general and certainly says nothing about how I view post processing.

Laura, you really think most of the time? I have a different view of photographer artists. I think many artists who make photos of people actually do want to express something about the person and are thinking about them as full vessels, which doesn't mean they can't still view them from their own unique point of view but does mean they see portrait-making as more a dialogue than as a means only to assert their artistic dominance. When I want to be reminded of great examples of collaboration between model and photographer, I go to Stieglitz's photos of Georgia O'Keeffe. O'Keeffe was anything but an empty vessel. And Stieglitz shows his artistic juice. He also tells a story of the woman, the artist, the lover, and it's not just HIS story. Part of being an artist can be (doesn't have to be) empathy with whom or what you're shooting (whether it's a street scene or a person) rather than a need only to assert one's own "creativity."

A photographer can decide whether to mold a scene completely so it becomes as much his own as possible or to honor the scene as much as possible so he conveys something significant about the scene itself, and any photographer can do some of each with a photo, in varying degrees.

Dear Fred, thank you very much for this last comment. I learn a lot in these debates, so I thank you all. Thanks for the link to the photos of Alfred Stieglitz. I did not know the work of this American photographer, I can tell you that having a look at the portraits he made to Georgia O'Keeffe, my heart beats stronger... It beats faster, they are simply incredible.

When I saw the photos, I automatically thought, "Laura ... in those looks/eyes of Georgia there is love, there is "love" in these portraits."

So then, I went to Wikipedia to find something "I suspected", looking for the words "wife" or "lover", beside the name of O'Keeffe.

Voilà: "He was married to painter Georgia O'Keeffe."

Bingo!...

You've set a wonderful example, but let me say that they are the most isolated cases, it's the large minority of cases.
I have always argued that to create Art, the means used must be strongly felt and be used with the heart ... I can not make these portraits to my "neighbor", apart from the fact that I have no genius like this author, it's about that my feelings would prevent me. I could make my neighbor, my friend... other kinds of portraits, but these certainly would not.
Because my neighbor is a far in the field of my feelings dimension. I do not know if I can explain myself well. So there's what is called "Muse" to the author/creator ...

It's true that all people are "full vessels" obviously we all are ... But to create such geniality, there must be something quite special in the relationship of people involved... Most of the time typical portraits of empty vessels are made, so they end by being "hollow chocolate", that's obvious just looking at the images. (The term "hollow chocolate" has previously been used on this forum to refer to this absence of "strong emotions")
You see, I use the words "empty vessels" others used the words "hollow chocolate", meaning always:. "Is void of feelings."

You show me one precious example among few exceptions, that's why they're so great and can transcend the barriers of time and years, when I looked at these portraits I read nothing but... LOVE.

This is a very interesting subject, which can be discussed. I'm very happy to have seen these photographs and grateful and I understand perfectly what you say to me. Perhaps for this reason, I make my own photos, I do not want to be the empty vessel of anyone...
Consider this: "do you think the person to whom the artist (photographer) would dedicate his negatives, his works, his dreams... is the same as the one that's sleeping beside him/her in bed everyday at night, or with whom has had their children?" ... Do you think that aren't there photographers that can't dedicate their negatives, their art... to the "fullness" of their eyes, soul and life? nevertheless, they can't stay idly.

An this is not called "hypocrisy", it is called "living in society".

Kindest regards.

Fred, Giangiorgio,
Thank you for bringing out the point of interpretation vs reality in art. I understand that art is looking at something through the artist's eye and then expanding that understanding into personal interpretations. However I think the examples you gave regarding fabrication in art, such as Mozart's incomplete music, or fading colors in old paintings, these are either necessary evils, or events beyond the artist's control. If Mozart's work was not completed, the world would be denied of that work, similarly fading colors are beyond the artist's control. However, when it comes to composite art, the artist can choose to disclose whether it is composite or not.

I am not asking photographers to disclose every technical detail of their work, just a simple disclaimer whether the work is a composite or not would suffice. I think this distinction is important because of photography's unique ability to freeze time. It is what distinguishes this medium from other visual arts.

It should never be assumed that composite art is in any way inferior to straight photo. I just believe the latter to be chronicle of a moment and that information should be part of the work when presented. A composite art can also be representative of a moment in time, and a good example could be the present work. I realize this after reading Giangiorgio's explanation. He did see the birds flying by the sun, but could not record everything in one shot due to technical reasons. So he made a composite image to tell us what he saw with his own eyes (not what he imagined). Still I think it should be disclosed as a composite work.

These are just suggestions and my own beliefs. I am not speaking on behalf of anybody else in this forum. Anyone is allowed to disagree with me, and this disagreement is what drives our originality and creativity.

Laura, I'm glad you like Steiglitz's work with O'Keeffe. Portraits that show a very real side of their subjects are not as rare as you seem to think. Of course, not all examples will have the intimacy of husband and wife but there are plenty of photographers who do make portraits of people they don't know very intimately that still bring forth a significant reality of and about that person. You may not want to or be able to make such a portrait of your neighbor, and there's no reason you should. But others can and do. All I'm saying is that it's worth considering how often a photographer's form of artistry is actually about revealing a reality about someone else rather than (or in addition to) creating one of their own.

Dorothea Lange shows the reality of a poor mother's determination.

Richard Avedon shows the humility and vulnerability of an American laborer.

Larry Clarke shows the seamier side of a drug addict's life.

Brassai shows the dignity of a prostitute.

Gordon Parks shows the very real and not very juiced story of a "second-class citizen."

None of these may reach you at the level that the portraits of O'Keeffe do. But they are all important photos of subjects that are not well-known to the photographer. They show an important reality of the person in the photo. The artistry is not so much about what the photographer creates as much as how in touch the photographer is with something very real about the person they are with, even in a brief moment of time.

What I'm saying is that there are lots of photos that remain very close to the reality they look at and that staying in that reality is part of the artistry involved. They are not the exceptions and they are not isolated cases. And there are many photos that seek to create a very new reality, that recognize a distance between photographer and subject, that may even create a complete fantasy, and those can be great and numerous as well.

A husband-and-wife team like Stieglitz and O'Keeffe may be rare but that was not my point. My point was to show one of many, many, many examples of photos that are filled with much more than the juice of the photographer, that are much more about a reality in the world that the photographer conveys effectively and with empathy.

For me, an image is all about how it makes you feel when you look at it. And for the most part I have to say that usually the way it is processed doesn't matter to me. However as photographers, we tend to gather information and knowledge about the way photo's can be manipulated and changed and therefore we can recognise a lot of PP techniques.. Nothing wrong with changing a photograph, or adding effects as long as the end result pleases the eye. I suspect that the reason that many photo's do not please the eye, is because we recognise the manipulation or when it looks too obvious. In this case although I couldn't see any "joins" in the image, at the same time it didn't do anything for me aesthetically or emotionally apart from the silhouetted tree, which I like. To summarise I think it is better to judge the end result of an image rather than concentrate on how it is created. Although having said that people, who have commented in this respect I believe have done so with the intention of explaining just why they don't like it.

Laura, THESE FOLKS are just someone's neighbors. Walker Evans traveled through Alabama and photographed people who were not members of his family, who he really didn't know all that well, but who he had an uncanny ability to portray as real, alive, human, and as deserving of our attention and respect.

Alf:

That may be the case, but I actually liked the photo from the thumbnail. Thats what brought me here. Later when I discovered it's a manipulation, I wasn't so impressed since in my mind I was imagining it to be a moment capture. I questioned myself whether it is from any bias against composite photos, and I realize it is not. I have both rated and commented favorably on composite imagery in the past. I just feel, this image is somewhat cliched due to the added birds.

Dear Fred, I've visited all the links of the images, except the one about the American laborer, my browser does not allow me.

I do not want that you end by reaching the conclusion that my opinion is the following one: * "Not everyone deserves to be photographed." I never stated that idea here, because truth is that I have always been in favor of equality for all. I'm sure one of the biggest disasters in Humanity is inequality and all to what this lack leads us.

All people are "worthy" of being photographed or painted or protagonists of a novel etc. But we cannot hide under the label of Art, or under the cover of artistic creation, whatever. There should be certained values well shown and dignity in what is being created. The photo of the French prostitute is full of dignity and a total assessement of values. A chosen prostitution has dignity, a forced and obligued prostitution is a felony. This French prostitute seems more the one of a B&W movie, an actress (though may be real) than another one who must to have sex several times a day with men and is being battered, locked and guarded. Do you really think she would look like the same way?

Notice that there're lots of photos that are made daily, with few dignity and quite vulgarity, that transcend even the delicate barrier to pornography. When there're many and many series of women just naked and showing their sh*ven p*ssies, I think to myself... this is not photography, this is just pornography, I can perceive any kind of Art, my senses are not shaken or stimulated, where the woman is totally empty and where they're being abused, agreed or not. It's a trade and you do not have to go very far to find this examples, they're in the forums.

I think so brave women such as Simone de Beauvoir, who dedicated their lives to defend their status as "being a woman" without being hated, or used, or abused; I do not want the work and courage of these women to be lost.

"The Second Sex" of Beauvoir was a resounding sales success. The author began to write as she reflected on a proposal from Jean-Paul Sartre, about what it had meant to her being a woman. She began to investigate the situation of women throughout history.

Also, I want to reflect on the idea that this debate deals more about the nature of the artist, than the person who's being photographed. I know that my nature is not the one of a photographer. I'm more "a creative person", I just search for tools... so perhaps I feel and perceived differently the process of photographic creation.

The truth is that I keep thinking about my nature, any restless creator, always asks for his/her condition, his/her "innerself": in fact I reflected much in the prologue I wrote for one of my images, Tell me who I am. .. if you have time, I invite you to read it.

I do not know who I am, but do not let conceal everything together, under one cover: ART.
Your examples all are true ART.

Dear Alf,

I fully share your opinion. Art could be a "tangle of feelings" ... we are not any judges to judge the ways of an artist. While it is true that to compete, for dignity and honor ... in front of colleagues, it must be said if it has been manipulated or not.
In this case I didn't perceived any joins neither, but we're looking at a small size, a larger size would be more detailed in this aspect.
Kindest regards.

Laura, you talked about prejudice earlier and accused some of us of being prejudiced. I'm going to ask you to wonder about the prejudice of this statement of yours:

I think this is the most important point I've been trying to make. And I'm going to start gently but then put it in stronger terms for emphasis. The point I've been trying to make is that one can be a creative person, a creative photographer (and I think all the photographers I've linked to are in one way or another creative) by allowing the reality of the scenes and people they photograph to come through, by honoring who or what is before them and not feeling the need to either add or in some cases impose their creativity on them.

Photo.net is full of people who see themselves as creative because of all the excesses they can come up with. The more imposing, manipulating, photoshopping, and compositing they do, the longer they hike for the right landscape scene (not that there's anything wrong with hiking it's just that long hikes do not make good photos, good photographers do), the longer they wait on the street for the right person to walk next to the billboard, the more creative they think they are. The more they push the slider bars, the more saturation they add, that's their idea of creativity. Things you keep repeating here lead me to believe you don't quite get the creativity of seeing as opposed to DOING much of anything, of perspective, of lighting, of capturing significant expressions, that is so important to photography.

I wasn't talking about who's worthy to be photographed, and am surprised that's what you took away from my examples. I was going back to your original statement, which I think was very misguided, "... most of the times models used in photos are like empty vessels to be filled with the juice of the author." If you now want to bring porn into the mix, OK, fine, but that dumbs the discussion down. No one was talking about porn. We were talking about photo portraits when you said that. And it wasn't true then and it's not true now.

The length and seriousness of the comments on this week POW would prove

to anyone that abundance of photos on the net,sites,

galleries, and in in everyone's pocket have never lessened

the seriousness of some viewers on how to look at the photos, particularly

hereby at PN,something that encourages me to be more

serious in making my own photos to satisfy those serious viewers .

Fred,

I am not going to divert you from this discussion. I just want to add that many of these photographers that you talk about, are still trying to find their place in the world of art. At the initial phase of learning, we are like a child in a toy store, playing with tools and possibilities. That does help with the creativity process, but ultimately one has to see the bigger picture, that creativity lies in the philosophy that your work conveys, above the aesthetics of the pretty picture (as you aptly pointed out). I am afraid, some of us do get stuck in the 'toy store' all our lives. I myself is at a stage where I have started to realize the bigger picture. Yours and others' thoughtful discussions did help with that, as did a few years of break from practicing photography.

I am not sure that I have ever seen anyone claim that they are being creative by hiking or that the longer they hike the more creative they have been. Although of course you read these forums and pages a lot more often than I get a chance to, so I am sure there must be some evidence of this. The getting up at 5.00 am and hiking is all part of the anticipation and enjoyment for me, but I would never describe it as "creative" in itself. It is just a measure to ensure that I am there in the best place with the best light to allow me the chance to be creative with my camera.

If I'm honest, if I could afford a helicopter to drop me off I think I'd choose that option.

As for adding more layers, more colour and generally processing to a high degree, well it either works or it doesn't. Personally I'm not a fan of hugely saturated and what I would describe as over processed scenes. But there are exceptions. But getting back to your point of being "creative" I have to agree, sometimes less is most definitely more! And I would concur that processing for processing's sake doesn't make anyone more creative.

As for waiting for the right person to be in the right place at the right time, again it isn't the waiting or how long someone is prepared to wait that is the creative bit, It is more in recognising of how much impact a photo might have if the chance manifests itself within the time they are willing to wait.

It was probably unwise of me to bring up processing again, as that's a flashpoint in these types of discussions. My real intention was to call attention to how much photographic artistry there is in simply looking carefully, adopting a significant perspective, and anticipating or knowing an expression that will convey something important about a person (or scene). I think plenty of photographers have juice and lots of photographers add juice to reality in a great way. I was arguing against the notion that most portraits are of that type and I chose among so many examples of great portraits where the photographer allows the person, even the unknown person, to speak as themselves through the photograph.

Good morning!, I waited for today to write my answer, intending to have clearer ideas and a more serene approach.

I feel I understand what it'd imply in photography to let the person photographed "speak" for itself. This means that there must be a dialogue between photographer and subject, or at least the result should not always be a monologue on the part of the photographer. There's much to do before shooting, so the lesson would be: let's flow what we have in front of us, let it be and we as spectators. Spontaneity may reveal itself perhaps the most precious thing in a photograph or people's kinesthetic or their bodies etc.

Could be understood as in real life, when someone says to us ... "shut up and let others talk." So far I understand and share this point of view, I open my eyes to another way of seeing photography.

With what I do not agree at all, is with this stubborn fighting against postprocessing. There are an infinite world of possibilities before the click in our cameras, but after the click there are too.

All that it's made in PS or any other editing program, photographers did the same in the darkroom. They changed and forced negatives, as they pleased!. Used oversaturated rolls of films for shooting in low colorful scenes evironments; They were forcing the films, used films with ISO 100 and selected the option ISO 1600 on the camera, because they did not take the film away out of the camera until finished and they've got scenes and situations which differ greatly. Did everything you can imagine! ... used hard papers in the revealing to get textures - created vignettes by using white light and protecting the middle with their hands or a stencil. They made a thousand and one things, they were artisans in the darkroom ... and nobody ever point the finger to them, because of their "excesses".

If I'm honest, in general I've been traumatized for my use of the word "creative", I am not able to use it anymore. For me, the verb "create" has: no negative or positive connotations. It is neutral.

I have never considered myself better than anyone because I like to work in the post-processing, and for wanting to be an artisan of the possibilities it offers.

Finally, (I will not write further because I want to make way for the new POW) ... maybe simplicity in photography is a golden rule. But for Art in general, it is not. Consider: each artistic stage goes through three clear phases: simplicity in forms, a need for details or neatness and a tendency to excess and exaggeration imbalance. We recognize Rococo, as an artistic stage, recharged and full of excesses, which has every right to be a worthy phase of art.

From what I gather, this imposition of always stay in the rule of "keep it simple" would mean never to go out of the first phase of any art. Art implies development, one has to experience.

Finally, I do not seek any place in the world of art (as someone stated), in fact, until recently, I just shared my images with no one. It's only recently that I show to others, and only a part of it. I produce so few images and I feel them so intimate that sometimes I do not need to show them to anyone. If I show is to see possible reactions and here in this forum to learn.

I want to say a "come on"! to all those who enjoy post-processing. It's a very old technique, always been present in photography, not only nowadays with Photoshop, Raw Camera, Lightroom etc.
The photographer of my village (a retired one), frozen his rolls of film ... do not ask me why ... is curiosity that makes us move, rightly and wrongly as well.

Have a nice day!

Laura,
We were never fighting against post processing in this forum. We were discussing how post processing changes the mood and impression of this particular image only. We did not bash up photographers who do post processing. We even appreciated some of the other post processing works of Giangiorgio.
It is YOU, who started this fight, and I hope you are the one who ends it, now!

I've not read through all the discussion since it seems to be quite long :-) - Just want to say that I like the image as it is. I've been around here on PN for 8-10 years and I always like Giangiorgio images or his vision of images as he presented them here. He's an artist at heart to me and I sure enjoy this one since it got birds in it but that's not why I like it. It got a mood to it and to me that's what count in an image - to convey a mood/ feeling through this media called photography.

delicatamente stupenda!

I absolutely LOVE this image !!   Great composition, color and mood.

The tree in the center acts as an excellent leading line.

Very well done...