passage

and away she went

I'd love to hear how you made this shot!

one layer has been "shopped" -motion blurr filter-

original shot overlaid and everything erased saved for the model...

Lovely photo!!!

You've made good use of PS here. Ethereal, moving - great title.

I don't like it. It says "photoshopped" very loudly (I thought that before I read the folder title) and no surprise that it was taken with a digital.. not that I'm against making use of either of those tools, just it shouldn't be so obvious that you did.

I reply to question above. She is a fashion model and like many such person think about nothing special, but "how beautiful am I". She is not thinking about Ginger, no doubt. Nonetheless one thing is interesting what the background movement is for? What idea is behind. Another terrorist attact destroyed the town building? Or just focus length of lenses was to short to blur background?

I think the idea here is "art". Are you getting it yet? Great photo Maurice. And Congratulations on POW.

WOW! What an emotional roller coaster you have been on this last week. Congratulations on POW. You have a talent and gift that I hope you will continue to explore. Live, learn and grow. Your images of NYC have always struck a chord with me, even more so after this last week. Again, congratulations .. keeping moving forward !!

Looks like fashion has it's turn in the POW for two weeks. It's by chance or elves have fashion project and are looking through fashion shots more

closely to get new ideas?

I like it. I think that the composition is good given the blur effect and the strong suggestion of movement, and I like the combination of colours. I don't find it's just a fashion shoot. Why does everyone insist on categorizing all the photos? "It's a tree shot". "It's a naked woman shot". "It's a llama shot".

 

Pawel, you're just an idiot. Grow up. Terrorism isn't funny.

 

Alex

First and most important Id like to express my condolences for the events of last week.

As for this drawing boring, boring two weeks in row.

 

A salutation from, Barcelona.

 

Gorgeous imagery. Ignore the naysayers, this is genuinely wonderful. It gives you a lot to look at, and you can pick out new details every time. Who cares what system or medium it was created with, it's still something that requires talent and creativity to do. I think the image without the photoshopping would be great as well. Beautiful work.

read before you speak:
exposure date: 2001-07-01...
i uploaded this a cpl. of weeks after i took and edited it... sorry buddy, i wasn't being opportunistic...

It's a nice image but one that I would pass over as not particularly interesting. The photos in the NYC folder had much more dimension in my opinion.

I like the idea but its implementation deserves more

efforts in PS, especially on the lady's face. The face should be

cleaned from the background details and its colour, contrast and sharpness

could be improved. Blago

right about cleaning up the face... dark cloud around the head and face quite bothersome.

I just wondered if there was any idea behind the blur of the background. Was it only blind artistic choice or deliberate decision showing something else. Once again answer is blank, showing no reasoning behind. Some of you are too sensitive and not only took me wrong but tried to offend me. The precise date doesn't matter in this instance.

Why an art can't reffer to the attack at WTC.

Alex Munro and Maurice Depestre tell me why?

And what is funny about if I'll ask?

i didn't mean to offend you in any way. as for ref. to WTC attacks, i have nothing against art, photos, poems, music, scribbles or doodles refer to it or any tragic event that takes place and simply alters our lives. i have tried and so far failed miserably to visually translate what and how i feel in light of those events. maybe i'll just give it up but i doubt it

regarding the background, i have blurred it in order to emphasize what i thought was the etheral feeling i had watching this women walk in front of me. pardon the cliche but i thought she was grace incarnate... it didn't occur to me at the time (nor does it now) that she was just an empty pretty package as you seem to suggest...

The use of horizontal motion blur as opposed to vertical, diagonal, gaussian blur or any other blur is here deliberate.

However you may term the result, it is not a fluke. i have at least 6 or 7 different versions of it and this is simply the one i uploaded because, in spite of its flaws, being the closest to what i wanted to convey... in this case, ephemeral, etheral passage...

On a more plebian level, i hated the building behind her...

Congratulations for your POW, Maurice. I know it offers no real confort for everything you lived since sept 11, but I sure hope it gives you back some joie de vivre. I told you some time ago that you were very underrated as a photographer and I think the elves finally reached the same conclusion. As a matter of personal taste, though, I prefer your plain, B&W street pictures to your elaborate Photoshop works. Keep on shooting good pictures!

 

Isn't that Mary Poppins without the umbrella?

 

Looks too fake for my tastes.

Maurice, when I first started seeing your images in the gallery I was immediately impressed. Your vision and execution is great. Congrats on POW (one out of many that could be from your work).

This is a very beautiful image: great colors and overall design. I don't like the woman's feet being cut off, but that just a quibble. As some of the previous posters have noted, I'm not sure if this is photography: perhaps photo.net should become image.net? Is it deserving p-o-w? i-o-w? I'm still trying to decide where to draw the line, if a line needs to be drawn at all.

 

Congratulations on this great photo (image)!

I like this picture alot. I have a strong attraction to pictures where the subject is 'colored' and the rest is in black and white.

 

What is the reasoning behind the harsh criticism for shots that are staged (i.e. a fashion shot)? Are nature shots of waterfalls or tigers in the wild the only acceptable shots around here anymore. I believe awhile back a few sports shots made the POW. They were harshly criticised because they didn't seem to fit the bill of 'art'. Now we've had some images that were staged but do fit the bill of art and people are complaining that it looks too fake. Judge the image on the basis of what it is and not what you think all images should be. This is afterall, photo.net, not natural-candid-shots.net.

 

Pawel,

 

You're a freaking moron. You asked what's wrong with making a stupid, idiotic reference to the WTC. I'll tell you why. Over 5000 people have possibly lost their lives with tens of thousands of people directly emotionally affected by this terrorist act. You're an idiot because you made a reference to it in 'passing' and without any seriousness to your question? Your criticism is strongly laced with sarcasm and that is why you got criticized in turn. Have your family and friends blown up and you'll understand as well.

A couple of observations. First, I like the overall effect of this "image". Is it "photography"? I don't think so... although it is certainly photograph"ic". My point being that a light tight box provided the genesis of the art we now see. I applaud Maurice for his creativity - and the title is indeed thought provoking.

 

Second, I (and others) wonder where the line should be drawn between photography and digital art. I know this topic has been discussed to death in various forums, but since the elves seem intent on provoking and stimulating discussion on the topic (given the high profile of the POW) I'll quickly add my two cents. IMHO, if an image is to be evaluated as a "photograph" then digital manipulation (i.e. photoshopping) should be limited to standard darkroom techniques such as dodging, burning, cropping, and slight color rebalancing. Where the image itself has been changed (including motion blur (as we have here) and/or the elimination of unwanted details such as power lines, ugly signs in the background etc.), then again IMO we have strayed from the photographic ideal. This is not to say that the resultant image is to be looked down upon, but rather it should be evaluated and appreciated within an altered context.

 

For me, the bottom line would be that such digitally altered images *ARE* appropriate for upload, discussion, and critique here at the photo.net site since, once again, the genesis of the image was the capture of a "real world" subject through the use of a light tight box. *HOWEVER* the artist should clearly indicate that the image has been altered (as Maurice has done here). *THEREFORE*, while I think it appropriate that these images receive critique at this site, I do not think that it is appropriate that they receive consideration for "Photograph" Of the Week.