passage

Very lovely, I like the subtle use of color.

I have to agree with Nick. Though it is somewhat interesting as art. As a photograph I don't think so, of course I would like to see the unaltered image, possibly it stands up as a photograph on its own without the obvious manipulation.

Hey Nick, if we limit photography to what can be done in a real darkroom, you do realize that the motion blurring shown would also be possible if you took the paper while it was being exposed, and shook it side to side. You realize this, right? Does this make it allowable now?

 

I like the image a lot, i'd like to see more popping colors, but that's just me. The image is great.

First an addendum to my post above, and then a quick reply to luis.

 

Addendum: I really do like this "image". I like the subtle use of color and I like the message/mood Maurice was trying to convey. If I were to offer any constructive criticism, I think the bit I can offer is that which has already been stated - the background blur mixing with the focused image of the model is a little distracting since I keep trying to look for more detail in the model (especially around the face).

 

Luis: To be honest, I didn't know this although it certainly makes sense. To date, I have not developed any of my own photos since I'm still fairly new to photography (although I'm beginning a darkroom class this Thursday). My earlier post was intended to convey what my "gut" is telling me about what is and isn't a photograph. Obviously, there are a lot of arguments that can be made both ways (in fact, I'll bet for every single argument for or against the digital manipulation of a picture, a valid counterargument can easily be made), and I'm not saying that I'm right, but merely what my opinion is. I think what it may come down to is "common sense" in that the individual arguments that are made for or against digital manipulation should at some point be divorced from the totality of the message that is trying to be conveyed. For example, if one were inclined to take this debate to absurd extremes, one might argue that isolating a pixel(s) from a photograph and then painting a picture with that color(s) may also constitute a photograph. I doubt anyone would agree with that statement, but nonetheless it could be argued. So again, it comes down to where/what the line separating photography from digital art is. I think such a line exists, and I know where my "gut" tells me that line might be located. *TO ME*, this image crosses that line (yet because I admire the effect and the intent, this does not mean that I wouldn't try to create similar types of images myself at somepoint in the future).

 

I'm not quite sure how to rate this one. It is quite lovely as a digitally-enhanced composite, but how does one rate the artistic value of something that is no longer a pure photograph per se? There seem to be more and more Photoshopped photos being posted; are we rating the cleverness of the photographer, or his skills with layers and filters?

 

Aside from all that, I do think this work effectively communicates its message. Drawbacks are the feet being cut off, and the lack of detail in the woman's features.

There is enough war in the world already! Please, be civil, my brethren!

To those who consider digital photographers less than the scum which one scrapes out of cracks in the sidewalk, please recognize digital as an artistic endeavor, just like painting or sculpture. It is just as expressive (though often more impressionistic) as old-fashioned photography. The reason for this is clear -- anyone with an idea, a feeling, an emotion about something they have seen can use any one of a number of digital tools to convey the feeling they intend. It brings art to those who previously could not afford the luxury of a darkroom, or those for whom film simply does not contain the expressiveness they desire.

For those of you who are digital people ... please recognize the resistance you face in a changing world. While digital photography is art just like sculpting and painting, recognize that it is just that, like sculpting and painting. It is not the same as old-fashioned photography, and it is not particularly meaningful to compare the two side by side. It's like comparing Weston to Rembrandt -- yes, they're both art, and they're both excellent ... but they're totally different.

BTW, I had my first hands-on experience to reinforce my decision to use film-based photography this weekend. I had a negative from a friend's wedding in which the bride was making an absolutely beautiful facial expression. The muses of photography blessed me with this single image of her from the 5 rolls I shot that day. Unfortunately, they blessed me from across the room, while I was using a 50mm lens and 400 ASA film. Fortunately, I have my own darkroom, and this weekend I set about attempting to make a decent print from the not-so-decent negative. I was quite surprised to learn that I could successfully produce a good 8x10 from it, and one which thoroughly pleased both the bride and the groom. Had I done that wedding digital, this priceless image would not have been possible. (Yes, yes, I'm sure there would have been dozens of other more versatile and easily editable expressive images, please spare me the comment...)

At the bottom line, both film and digital have their advantages and disadvantages, but I'm tired of comparing them side-by-side, as the same art.

Maurice.

 

I am a fan of your work and there is much that I like in what you've done here, but the chopping of the feet and clumsiness of motion "effects" around/on the head are rather serious technical flaws. Strangely enough, I'm tempted to overlook them because of the strengths of the image (wonderful grace and fluidity in the body and moving background), but the more I stare at the picture, the more intrusive the flaws become. You obviously have a strong sense of visual aesthetics and I look forward to viewing your future images here.

 

As for those complaining of the picture looking "fake," I wonder what they would make of the Velvia nature kitsch I see paraded around here all the time. My opinion is that it should be a matter of taste rather than reality. In fact, I found a lot more objectionable artificiality in the "water drop against Ikea plate" POW a few weeks ago than what's being presented by Maurice. To opponents of the digital darkroom, perhaps we are approaching an era in which the divisions between painting, "imaging" and photography disappear. So what? Are you proposing some sort of artistic fascism to counteract it? It think our brains are sophisticated enough to appreciate the specific merits of both traditional photographs and those manipulated beyond recognition, as well as anything in between. In much the same way, many of us can enjoy paintings that rely on verisimilitude or abstraction, although we probably apply somewhat different standards in evaluating them.

 

P.S. Just posted, viewed and noticed above that Daniel beat me to the punch--well at least the right hook, if not the jab. Cheers!

David.

 

I did not mean to suggest any fixed, a priori rules or standards. Just look at the image and react to it. Do you like it or don't you? If necessary, analyse why. It's very simple.

 

BTW--if you think that somehow film is more "true" than digital, you are very mistaken. In its very basic mode, my E-10 routinely captures images that are quite pedestrian, by virtue of looking so much like the real thing. Doing them up to the more interesting standards/traditions the legacy of film has established invariably involves some Photoshop work, in particular "curves" and especially for a proper B&W look, which demands it a lot more than colour.

Oh for crissakes... will some of you listen to yourselves./.... What the hell are we all here for anyway!!!! To learn!!! To appreciate! To learn to learn to learn!!! And---everyone from the professional to the ametuer and always learn something! That is why I love photography. I don't mean to get on a gosh darn soapbox here.. But have we not learned what is important in life?! I plan to come back and comment some more after dealing with figuring out how to do something to make a difference in this world and help in some way with what has happened in NY and here in VA...Meanwhile folks... clearly... anyone who can't get used to digital or digital art.. I hate to tell you that you will go the way of the "record player"...the "phonograph", the "45" ..record.. which...do no longer exist.. I wish to heck I knew more about the digital area myself.. I'm not so myopic to think film is the media that I can count on to always be there.. I'm sorry because I am used to it and I love it...I'm also older and do not like letting go of the familiar..

 

However...Lets help each other, learn from each other and become open minded here... POW == what is that... Photo of the Week.. Which means what..! An image, chosen - for discussion because why!? It is striking and well done in it's genre.. Whatever category that might be... And there are many...many...different tastes, talents, categories.. Just because it isn't your taste.. does not mean that it isn't good well done or worthy of being chosen for it's merits within its catagory... Stop being so gosh darned close minded in this close minded enough society.. Sorry... I'm pretty pissed at much more important things in life right now!!!!!! I'd love to see more tolerance and open mindedness in this world..and in photo net membership. Guess what.. wouldn't it be fun to learn how this was done.. and then use that technology to do something that is within your "taste"... What is this site for!!!??? Lets stop bashing and start learning.

Mary.

 

I own a very expensive high-end system and my primary source is a record player. On top of it all, 12" 45rpm singles are the best sounding bits of vinyl ;-)

Though it is somewhat interesting as art. As a photograph I don't think so,

Is it any wonder that photography has had such a difficult time being regarded seriously as "art" by some people when photographers themselves are so busy drawing distinctions?

Regarding the photograph, it's a wonderful idea and it works quite well, the model is well-shot, but I think, as some others mentioned above, that there needs to be some more work around the model. It has the look of a "work print" (or "work image," whatever) rather than a finished piece.

But I still like it quite a bit.

Wonderful picture Maurice, It says to me, in a fast paced world a womans beauty can slow the most preoccupied soul to pause and notice. The photo also says to me, this photographer has true vision. Thanks for sharing it with us

Is it my imagination or are the only people who object to photoshop being used are the ones who dont know how to use it.

It is very refreshing, catching photo.net, to move into the 21st Century. I like to believe, the time where a subject is photographed because it is there- is passe. Documentary style does have its place, but this is all it is,- a Document, more or less in a skilled portrayal. As soon as still-photography doesn't has to hide any longer from its popular cousin,- the moving-kind, a big step forward had been done! How much fun is awaiting the individual trying to interpret something like this week's PoW rather, than for instance, a flock of birds stationary high up in the sky?-

It is a bit funny to hear another disscusion about digital phtotography,... from the ones who used digital technology to upload their photos.

You've got to realize that even T-Max from Kodak, although very sharp, has grains which are similar to the pixels in a way they carry information,

and only resolution is different. Further more it's possible to produce similar effect by more standard technics in a darkroom so there is no point in disscussing it over and over. What you guys are jealous for ... the PhotoShop? Lets buy it at the nearest corner and try yourself. Personally, I prefer non digital photography. I asked Maurice why he blured the background just to see if it was because of deliberate choice or just something that came from "dark dips of our souls". Very often people do not know why they did something like that.

At first glance, from a distance, it looks awful, but it's much better enlarged, from close distance. Would be even better without that dark cloud around model's head.

To the ones too involved in discussion I'd like to remind that POW usually isn't the best photo (how to judge it in absolute scale?), but the one which is good enough (or better) to encourage people to share opinions and comment. Elves are learnig from us to, no doubt.

This is definately an image that blurs the boundaries of art and photography. As for the debate between digital and film (I use film)...surely its the final image that counts. It kind of reminds me of a debate between water based versus oil based paintings. Also the other debate about photoshopping images...most photos posted here are probably modified in some way. The moment a camera picks up reflected light you are dealing with a modified image. Why can't someone use photoshop to create something interesting and unique such as this image?

 

An interesting choice for POW...from a portfolio which shows a photographer who has considerable creative talent.

Nice and imaginative folder, Maurice. Love the composition. While I'm personally not a big fan of Photoshop, I like how it can add a bit to the photographic imagination. If people here squabble about your work, most likely due to jealousy. Let 'em fight amongst themselves and just do your thing.

First, let me say that i've had some of the same esthetic concerns aboutthis "image" (the cutoff feet and the face being obscured) sincebefore i uploaded it and i'm myself surprised at the choice of the elvesin spite of those serious flaws...

Now, some of your comments resonate strongly here. i have beentorn from the beginning between the validity and the qualities of a photo that is "pure"and one that has been "bastardized" by digital manipulations (please do not lend more to these adjectives than the strict context in which they are used). I stilldon't know exactly how to deal with the dilemma on the conceptual, esthetical and theoritical levels. one sideof me whishes i was jo voets or vuk vuksanovic while the other simply knows i will neverbe... since i have no intention of committing suicide over the matter and instead of pathetically trying to imitate their art, one of my options is to explore personnal esthetical elements i've developped in other media (i paintfrom time to time and i'm a composer). It is sometimes very difficult for me to view a photo simply for what it is: a photo. i often find myself visualizing photos as paintings or, even worse, as whole movies!!!

So i turn to digital manipulations not only to compensate for my own current limitations (DOF concerns, lighting, blablabla) but more importantly, to compensate for what i consider to be limitations of the environment in which i take most of my photos (hugly buildings, poles, cables, faces and people that have nothing to do with the main subject and so on...) sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. in the case here the entire background simply didn't!!! remember that this is a "street shot", a street fashion show with people constantly coming and going in front and behind me, pressing my back, ect... I can think of at least three concrete/practical solutions to recreate this image exactly as it is shown here. One possibility could have the model walk in front of a moving image, along with the necessary lighting). But these solutions are costly and i'm not even sure that i'd want to go to such lenght in pursuit of purity... it would be just as contrived, but then, would it be labeled fake, even if the model is walking in front of a "fake" background ???

Whatever the answers, so far my consolation comes from admiring the work of the "true blue" photographers here at photo.net and doing whatever else i feel like doing.

Cheers to all.
P.S. for the curious, here is the original shot!!!

I saw your original shot of the pic, and thought you did a great job PS-ing it. The result is wonderfully aesthetic. You made what would have been a very ordinary shot into an extraordinary one!

Maurice, I think you're one of the true originals around here - I think it's good to see lots of people encountering your work.

For those of you who hate all this photoshop nonsense I present the following two images for your enjoyment/consternation:

/photodb/image-display?photo_id=296278&size=sm/photodb/image-display?photo_id=296283&size=sm

Both are shot on film, but no lens (not even a pinhole) was used, in fact the film was only just about in the camera. The colour is unchanged. All I have used Photoshop for is cropping and contrast - they are free from "manipulation".

They are not pictures of mildew, by the way.

So, are they photographs? Should I upload them to PN?

Jawed

Maurice said:

 

"I can think of at least three concrete/practical solutions to recreate this image exactly as it is shown here. One possibility could have the model walk in front of a moving image, along with the necessary lighting). But these solutions are costly and i'm not even sure that i'd want to go to such lenght in pursuit of purity... it would be just as contrived, but then, would it be labeled fake, even if the model is walking in front of a "fake" background ???"

 

Very interesting point Maurice. Yesterday, after posting my second comment, I thought more about the distinction between a photograph and digital art. The conclusion I came to before reading your post above was that a photograph is an accurate representation of what a human eye would see through the viewfinder - *color and length of exposure notwithstanding*. I specifically exclude colour because to say otherwise would be to suggest that *ALL* black and white images are not photographs. Additionally, since most films produce varying interpretations of the colors they were exposed to (velvia vs. kodachrome for instance), again you would be led to conclude that color manipulation is acceptable in a "pure" photograph. BTW, I include with color any localized intensifying or muting of the colors through techniques such as dodging and burning.

 

I exclude length of exposure since a long exposure does in fact represent what a human eye would see if a human eye could amalgamate all the visual information it receives over a period of time longer than the blink of an eye.

 

Note that I *DO NOT* distinguish between the medium used to capture this information whether it be digital or film. I agree with those who suggest that film will go the way of the dinosaur (or at least the vinyl LP) - it seems inevitable to me. Digital cameras will improve, and I would bet that at some point they will have a dial or a menu from which you can choose the digital version of your favourite film (i.e. Tri-X or Velvia or Kodak Gold or whatever).

 

To me, Digital Art begins the moment you begin manipulating, for lack of a better term, the "substance" of what was seen through the viewfinder. Again, this would include deleting the visual eyesores such as that "ugly power line" or adding effects that were not captured in the first place - *EVEN IF* it might be possible to create a similar effect in the real world such as Maurice's suggestion that he could have used a moving background to create the same effect. The point is he didn't, and for me, this moves the picture into the realm of digital art.

 

To further confuse the issue, I imagine another category which I will term "film art" could be identified such as when Luis suggested that the same blur effect could be created by moving the paper back and forth during development. Again, this would be an alteration of what was seen through the viewfinder, and in my mind, not a pure photograph.

 

This post is not concerned with whether the image is "fake" or not, since it could be argued that a huge proportion of photographs taken might be fake (i.e. is it "fake" when a person "poses" for the camera?). I am simply trying to establish for myself where the boundaries are between a photograph and other types of art.

 

Finally, for those who persist in labelling this type of discussion as an attack on Maurice or any other artists who use photoshop or other techniques to generate the results they desire - get over it. These artists are talented and worthy of respect. Someday I may wish to emulate them. But in my mind, their final product cannot be defined as a "photograph".

Nice shot.

 

I happen to very much appreciate both traditional film and digital photography.

 

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks that a digitally manipulated image should be judged side by side with traditional images. IMHO the appreciation for the image is very much tied to method used to produce the image when judging images.

 

The fact that an image is the recording of an actual event may be part of its message. On the digital side the fact that an image is an abstract of an event that did not take place may offer a similar appeal.

 

A very difficult effect with traditional film/darkroom may very well be child's play for a skilled photoshop user.

 

I feel that a new art form has simply been added to the many ways to produce beautiful images and it is not a slight to digital photographers to have their images be separately grouped and judged based on the craft of digital art.

 

I'm sure I'm going to be clobbered by someone, but what the hell...

 

"The point is he didn't, and for me, this moves the picture into the realm of digital art"
very valid point nick and one i will not oppose.

I take great offence to Mary Ball's comment that "record players...do not exist anymore." Obviously this is a comment made by someone who knows NOTHING about good music, and/or the medium that it sounds best in.

 

Anyways, as far as POW goes, I think I like the original shot better (if it were cropped). Maybe I'm just partial to pink.

What=ever... Maybe the above commenter is correct... Not the point... I'm sure there are purist out there that love the record player and know that it is the best way to listen to music.. UNfortunately... they are still out of the loop... (not so easy to get current music on a "record" is it) That is just the (perhaps unfortunate) way of the future...I prefer to not live in the past.. even though I approach 50 and change is not easy.

 

Point.... This image is the point.. Not anything else... I'm getting bored with retoric..and "opinions" (including my own) Talk about the image!!! I like the movement here... I love the energy and I love the touch of color and I think it is great... That is my 2 cents. I know I'd be happy if I were to produce this myself.. It is on the edge and full of life!!!