This is the Way It was

There are scenes which are great when you can see with your own eyes and doesn't bring the same feeling when it comes to photography.

In my humble opinion this picture belong to that category. It seems heavily digitally processed (although I trust it's not), color seems over saturated (although I trust they are natural), details are lacking in center probably due to the delicate exposure versus the sunlight... in few words the picture as the result is somehow frustrating...

By the way, Thomas, on top of your golf photos, I liked very much both portrait of the muslim v1 and portrait of the muslim v2

Since I'm an amateur photographer without much knowledge of technicalities, I can only say that the photo is very appealing. The burst of sunrays over the silhouetted island is spectacular. On occassions like this nature shows us it's delusions of grandeur. Truly one of the best images I've ever come across.

I find some of the above comments interesting about over digitization and saturation..to get a better feel of how you think, I have uploaded this version that is around 2 full stops(give or take)brighter.Do you still feel the same way after viewing this?

I'm new to photography so take everything I say with a grain of salt. For me, I don't always care what the photographer is trying to convey as an artist. There are times when I want to see a photographer's creation, but there are many times when I simply want to see what the photographer has captured, pulled straight from the world. In such a case I don't consider it much of a creation at all, merely the creation of a record. This can be done well or can be done poorly. I think it is completely valid and often refreshing.

 

I don't mean to sound too antagonistic, but perhaps we need to get over ourselves and admit that sometimes art just happens. I don't think all photographs should be taken with a painter's mentality, i.e. a painter's desire to create something with style or with a message of some sort. This photograph is a good example. Here is a picture of something I would greatly like to see, and the photographer did a more than adequate job of capturing it for me. There's only mild creativity in the choice of subject and method of capture, but that's completely beside the point in this case.

 

A judge of aesthetics can't and shouldn't always be blind to the subject. The instant I saw this I didn't see patterns and colors, I saw an interesting event taking place, and I felt immersed. That makes it attractive to me. I don't care how good it might look on the wall of my apartment. It's not for decoration. We're not selling perfume here.

 

That said, I wish I could see a more panoramic view of this scene. I don't know if it would help the aesthetics but I'd still like to see it.

My first comment here, so take it with a grain of salt. The best quality of the original photo is the deep rich colors. The second in my opinion looses that richness. Yes, the island is a bit of a blob in the center but that's not what captured my interest. Keep the color in the original and maybe sharpen the island in post processing.

Where on the original one might see noise and artifacts Version 2 shows detail in the sky and differentiates better between clouds and islands.

I agree with Trevor. The center is quite busy. Otherwise, I like the extreme saturation in this subject.

BTW everybody should take a peak at other folders in Thomas' portfolio.

For Film/Media it says "Fuji 100", what's Fuji 100? Astia? Provia? Which version? Just curious. At least it was not called Fugi.

Thanks for the new input Thomas, the image looks indeed less aggressive to the eyes but I still think that what you saw with you eyes (and that is the case of many sunsets photo and some landscapes too) was far more overwhelming and impressive than the image that a camera can convey... to the list of reasons I raised before I should had simply that the space dimension from the viewer point is also of a great disadvantage when looking at such picture.

ahhhhhh !!!! ... the infinite debate on the sunset pictures...

the elves picked up somehow an extreme example of a sunset image, not one as boring as many other peaceful sunsets images we often see - I have one correponding to this definition in my folder ;o) - where generally colors and contrasts are soft and delicate, ... no elves chose one, probably more originally, with naturally oversaturated and strange colors, naturally harsh contrast and exposure, ... just missing an orange deer drinking in the purple water to be totally kitsh...

:o)

I also felt that, ...may be because of the look-a-like in shape and colors of the wartime japanese rising sun flag, .... may be because the connection with Philippines islands and Mc Arthur, may be... the darkness and scary mess in the center with a firelike bombing in the background,.... may be because I live in Japan .... this image definitely conveys an unpleasant and painful reminiscence of the pacific war. But this are just my very personal feelings Thomas.

Thanks for your input and happy you like some of my work. I do have a problem when the conversation develops into a personal attack on a person's intellect or personal religous leanings..just not the time or place IMO.

 

Richard,thanks for stopping by,I remember losing my web virginity last time around to you but always appreciate your talents and comments.The film was Provia.

 

Jacques,the reason I uploaded the other version was because I wanted to see if your comments on being over digitized were based on just your percieved view of what you think reality is or is not..or should be.The new version I posted has a substantial loss of saturation and delineation IMO but has nothing to do with what has been done in PS BUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IN CAMERA F-stops.Rarely do you find people complaining about in camera adjustments because the bias leans toward a certain purity for some and is an artist's perogative to do so with no ramifications..or so they say.

 

But if you think it was all done in PS then your perception becomes one of fantasy,heavy handedness and a kitschy assault to your senses.. but my position is that most people in this world have never seen anything like this before and what they have not witnessed before immediatly becomes suspect or something of ridicule as in Elvis velventine masterpieces.No doubt I can fully understand the bias and aquired prejudiced toward this image because IT IS frustrating to those who have not seen.But on the other hand I cannot buy the argument that this is any less art or photography than the next image.I did have to think about a few things and not the least of them was metering on the right area to achieve something that closely resembled what I saw.

 

No one is holding a gun to your head and demanding that you like this shot,you either do or you do not and your choice(and other's)is clear and I accept this with no problems.I do think that one should think twice though before branding'an image as kitsch or non photography or merely a snapshot simply because you do not understand or are frustrated with your own feelings.BTW,I like your work very much and thanks for keeping the discussion alive.

Thomas, I am afraid you misunderstood part of my first comment (my poor english!), I had absolutely no doubt that u didnt touch the photo in PS - that's precisely why it lead me to the feeling of 'frustration' (not sure the word is totally appropriate though!) of both the photographer that probably wanted to show the great vision he had and the viewer of the photo for not being there. And thanks for your nice comments and open minded discussion (always difficult to be on this weekly grill!)

and hopefully there was no orange deer in your picture!!:o)

I did use some PS as described in the technical details and understood your viewpoint.I was just touching on bias's that some might have in regards to photographers using shutter/apertures,saturated films etc.,as opposed to using PS to do the same thing.

Thomas, I hope you were not offended by my assumption as to how much work was put into this shot. I think it's nothing to be ashamed of. Heck, if you were falling down, accidentally pressed the shutter, and still came up with this image you shouldn't be ashamed or feel it not worthy of display. I love the way it looks and honestly, I evaluate it 100% on that. When you look at a photograph you should evaluate it for what it is, not for what you think the photographer put into it. I know you still had to work to get this shot; my only point is that you weren't puffing up the clouds yourself, calling over the horizon for more light, and telling the waves to calm down a bit.

 

This is as much art, and as much a photograph, as anything else. But I think, in this case, a lot of the artistic input belongs to nature. Nothing wrong with that!

Thomas, congratulations on your POW. I have enjoyed your photography for several years on PN and I've always appreciated the craftsmanship in your work. While this is not my favorite photograph of yours, it's certainly a fine shot and a worthy shot for discussion. It's a good springboard for members' thoughts about exposure, saturation, the sunset genre, digital enhancements, and the inability of the camera to record all the eye can see. Personally, I like the photo and think it conveys at least some of the amazing sunset you experienced.

 

In a few days you can take off the bear skin . . .

Thomas, can't think of anyone more deserving of a POW than you. Congrats... This is one of my favorites of yours. A really amazing moment in time.

 

Dave

This is terribly over-egged!

 

Exactly the kind of manipulation which gives sunsets a bad name!

 

Sorry, Nick.

Nick, you're coming on way too strong for someone who claims in his bio not to understand much about color. Exposure is not just a matter of getting it right. It can also be a matter of artistic choice. It would be a shame to go through the whole week without understanding that, given that Tom has uploaded two versions - with a two stop difference, no less. Both are reasonable interpretations of the scene.

 

Try shooting a roll at dawn or dusk and bracket all your shots. I think you'll be surprised.

No offense taken Jason and understand your commentary completely.Nature's Historians...another name for landscape photographers?Robert has given me permission to remove my bear skin soon,it's starting to itch!Thanks Dave for stopping by,always a pleasure.Nicholas,this image was a sunrise..really..I am not exaggerating this point...it was a sunrise!Thanks for commenting..

Sunrises are just sunsets in reverse - it is all a simple function of the Earth spinning on it's

axis, causing light from the sun to be defracted through the atmosphere at an acute angle

of incidence to the observer!

 

...but seriously, I much prefer many of the more subtle shots of the same and similar

subjects in your portfolio. I suspect that the Elves chose this image which I describe as

"over-egged", because it is so extreme, and has provoked discussion. In my humble

opinion, it is not amongst your best.

 

Sorry, this is my honest opinion, if I understand anything about colour or not!

 

Regards, Nick.

Why apologize,this is an open forum and you are not the only one who has negative opinions and it is the diversity that makes this POW fun.I think a lot of you are missing the point of this image though and you did hit the nail on the head when you said.."the elves probably chose this because it is so extreme..".Your probably right and precisely why this shot is dear to MY HEART.Over the top,in your face,no holds barred assault on your senses!

 

But not because of something I have done Nicholas but what Nature had offered me at the time...and I took the shot.I shot it in darker tones,in lighter tones and in medium tones in a total of about 8 minutes and 12 exposures.Not at all ashamed to admit that my hair was standing on end and the tears were flowing and that if we HAD ALL BEEN THERE WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HELD HANDS AND HUGGED(humour).Which leads into the emotional content of this image(OR ANY IMAGE)...is it possible to look beyond personal bias's of aesthetics and place yourself in the same psyche as the photographer when the image was experianced?So many good images have been overlooked by many people because of failure to move beyond technical issues or even sometimes aesthetical issues.Recently this was discussed in depth on another image in my Darlin portfolio about actually taking the time to visit the mind of the photographer whenever the opportunity presented itself...it opens up a new world sometimes.Thanks again Nicholas....

"This is terribly over-egged!

Exactly the kind of manipulation which gives sunsets a bad name!Sorry, Nick."

 

How is the shot manipulated?? If you'd take the time to actually read what was writen you'd see there was NO MANIPULATION HERE! I have no problems if you think it's too dark, too rich, too God-like (sorry Vuk) or whatever else. But what you said above is that this was manipulated. Here I'll paste it for you again.

 

"The kind of manipulation that gives sunsets a bad name."

 

Your words not mine. Perhaps you could elaborate... or maybe apologize.

Its been said by the author of the photo that there has been some PS done. Its obvious that there is something done. It looks to me like a heavy hand on the saturation and on the contrast. Sunsets/sunrises by old mother nature with this heavy dark brooding moods are not something I can relate to.

In essensce, this is the Tom's interpretation of a sunrise, or Vincent's, with the use of Velvia and high saturation and contrast. Nothing more/nothing less. Personally, I find it highly imaginative, and way over the top, with no detail in the dark areas. The sun is centralized and it is a rather cliché photo; one of which we all have in our our portfolios. But why is it necessary to change what we see with our eyes into something so cramped, dark, desolate, as what this could have been in its original form? Old God knows why

Congrats on the POW, enjoy~

Thanks for your input and opinions,appreciated here.I would like to say though for the last time that this image meets the criteria set forth by PN for an unmanipulated image and that the saturation slider was never used to increase but actually DECREASE the reds because I thought they were too intense with the underexposed version I chose.This precisely why I uploaded the second version to show what apertures can do to an image as far as saturation goes..as you say it does not fit your tastes but heavy handed in PS it is not!

 

Yes,I choose to use Velvia(an interpretive emulsion),yes,I choose to underexpose a lot of my images(an interpretive action), no different than using slow shutter speeds to turn water to milk by the way,and as a fellow photographer this is my right.Vincent Tylor as well as myself can fully understand the raging battles that have been beaten to death over the years regarding the use of saturation either through films or PS because of our similar styles and tastes and it will never end...ever.Some of you like it,some of you do not but lets move on to something far more interesting like WHY we do what we do and how personality effects our photography which in my opinion is far more worthy of discussion.At this point I would rather discuss religion(maybe Vuk can jump back into the fray)than have this digress into meaningless diatribes on to be or not to be.Am I the only one?

Further more,why does anyone choose a specific style to express their art?Did Salvador Dali see his world through distorted perceptions of reality,a reality that is frustrating and disturbing to the casual viewer?Walking in different shoes and seeing through varied eye glasses IMO is what art is all about MM.and is it not presumptuous to assume that one must see the same as others?The colors I saw when taking this photo were much more saturated then you see here in my meager attempt to capture perfection and was beyond any eye candy film I have ever used...like seeing outside the box for the first time and realizing thee is more to life than what we have experianced.