Evening sky at Ile de Sein - Brittany.

People are so silly...what if one uses a filter, then it's not a photo? Longer/shorter exposure, then it's not a photo? Digital, then it's not a photo? Learn to accept beauty, science isn't art, proof isn't needed.

Regards!

Photography is a technical uniformly image of reality (hence BW, Sepia, Fisheye, pinhole, infrared ... all is photography) with the intention to render with this uniformly image the reality (hence a sensor of digital cameras records photos). So it has demonstrated quickly in 1850-1900 , that painters are not starving artists because painting is genuine to render a vision of the artist and so very distant from photography: by conception. It are two different arts.

 

 

Here the PN commentators are right to have some discomfort: the image is altered by reflexion procedures which are not applied uniformly on the whole image, only partially with the intent not to render reality but only to simulate with the special aim here that the viewers may oscillate between yes or no. In fact it approaches the character of a vision by adding those reflexions, but is not photography in the proper sense of authenticity. So we have here another concept (to elaborate furthermore a difference to painting concepts).

real or not, it's full of beauty and makes my brain feels well, so... WOW!

I'm not so sure how one would define photography; or even if one should.

 

Under the strict definition of "capturing an image" (film or digitally), and not doing any post processing - any good technician can do that - with very little creativity required.

 

However, Ansel Adams wouldn't likely agree with that; he dodged, burned and manipulated his images in a very artistic or creative way.

 

I personally choose to be creative and artistic, not mechanical and technical (although by profession I am an applied scientist - engineering). Hence I admire this creation by Al Magnus, whether or not the sky looked exactly like that, or whether or not the reflection has been magnified (it would seem to be as there are too many waves/ripples for such a perfect reflection).

 

People scoffed at VanGogh, Picasso, and the other ground breaking great artists - because they weren't painting reality!

 

Perhaps photographers need to loosen up; on the other hand, maybe many of us don't have any "creative juices" and must merely accept the scenes or objects that are put before our eyes and cameras and rely on luck.

Dear Arnold, firstly I thank you for taking the time to leave a comment, and I apologize in advance if my english is unclear.

 

I was of your advice until one day I was roaming around in a museum, with pictures by, but not only, Man Ray, but also peculiar objets (Marcel Duchamp) and a square, a simple white square (Malevitch). And suddenly it occured to me, that all these objets could be defined in many ways. Was Malevitch's square a painting, a sculpture or a layout? Were Man Ray's "Rayogrammes" photographs? drawings? or (as he put himself) "Rayogrammes" ?...From that day on it became obvious to me that maybe we could care about the definition of the work but you cannot subtract it from the INTENTION of the artist. So this picture above is a photograph, because it is MY INTENTION to be such.

 

 

Now I just can't leave without the following questions:

 

- Who can decide "a posteriori" which elements of this picture are real? That is reason of this picture. A "pied de nez" to reality. Someone objected the boat reflection is unreal... he was wrong.

 

- How do you know "a posteriori" is this scene was not the real one?Because you have never seen a scene like that? Or because you don't BELIEVE?

 

- How many tranformations are we liable to accept in order to keep the definition "photograph"?

 

- And to finish, is a BW street photograph a more reliable representation of "reality"?

 

To resume. Its the INTENTION I gave to my work which defines what it is. I tell you... its a car you see.

 

I just thank you for posting a comment, yours sincerely, AM.

You are ALL *F C K N* Jalous! (those who negatively comment this picture) I looked at your galleries and you AREN'T able to the the fantastic work that AL is able. Stop crying and start running in the New Reality... it like a guy that absolutly want to shot in neg because he only did that since 1910... AWAKE ALL! Welcome to the real world. THIS is a really beautifull image and everybody has to modify a scan and a digital output before printing it. or you are dumb!

AL: BRAVO

LES AUTRES: APPRɃIEZ L'IMAGE ET FERMEZ VOTRE GUEULE!

Waw! Magnificent view!

Tremendous photo.

 

To those who say this is fake - look up Jeff Wall. If you then say 'what a load of crappy photos', look around for how much they sell for.

 

Neal

Al, throughout the ages in "ART", the content matters not the means.Your photo is brilliant

It's a stunning picture with glorious colours but I personally don't like the enhancement of the reflection. With the pattern of the ripples of the water, or for whatever reason, it just doesn't look real and for me that detracts from the picture. The clouds appear to be beneath the water rather than a reflection on it.

Strange argument though. I don't have too much time for the "this is not a photo" idea. Clearly it is a photo that has been digitally manipulated. But Al, I'm equally unconvinced by your "it is what I say it is" line - words do have meanings, albeit fluid, and there is an absolute difference between an oil painting and a marble sculpture. I'm afraid the artist doesn't get to decide which is which.

It's art, and saleable. People could go on all night about PS tweaks and some do:

 

Alain Briot:Just say Yes

 

 

Al - I think the problem is that you have too many computer altered surrealist photos in your portfolio to make people think that this photo is like those images too. But I wonder why we dont trust the photographer when he says how he made the image - why will he lie in a forum like this? This is a great photo and I trust your remarks about how real this photo is. The reflection looks like digitally enhanced - that's the only thing that jumped at me when I saw it - the reflection is too good to be true. But so what? It's a rendition of your vision... Ignore those negative comments - Thanks.

After reviewing such extensive critiques and criticism on what I first saw was a brilliant photo, I was intrigued to review Al's full portfolio.

 

Definitely worth a look, for those who have not.

 

Yes, this photo may have some digital alterations, but much less than other pieces of his work.

 

His portfolio is filled with magnificent works of imagination, that are akin to fairy tales, and for me, create a complete sense of awe.

 

Yes, his work would not be considered to be purist, but I would most defintely have to categorize it as true art.

 

I beleive the controversy his image(s) have sparked, would be indicative of any other brilliant artist during their prime. They are debated and extolled an ocean of reasons as to why they should not be considered art, instead of just being appreciated for what they are.

 

Personally, I am ecstatic when I capture an image that requires a minimal amount of work in Photoshop and feel it is good, but to have the artistic skills Al posesses to take average shots (and I by no means feel that his any of his shots are average), and to turn them into brilliant revelations of imagination would be a total rush.

 

In my opinion, Al's work is true art, whether altered or not, as it definitely come from a place of great imagination.

 

I anxiously look forward to seeing more of it.

So, everybody loves a great painting no matter what the medium. Then, if every critiquer that called this a "GREAT SHOT" would re-cant and call it a "GREAT PAINTING", there would be no argument. It's the arrogance of trying to justify calling these compositions "photographs" that stirs up vehement reactions from those of us who respect the "ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY", which this is not.

Call it a photo, digital art, or something else, it's still pleasing for me to look at and I appreciate whatever effort went into it. I see photography as an art form, and have no problems with someone manipulating a piece to produce a more pleasing result. It's done in moviemaking all of the time. My only concern would be if someone manipulated a piece that they were trying to pass off as unmanipulated in an effort to deceive and gain something (i.e. money or notoriety). Certainly nothing like that being done here.

Here's my worthless 2 cents, so worthless I'm quoting someone else :)

 

-----

michael ginex, May 08, 2007; 03:15 P.M.

 

So, everybody loves a great painting no matter what the medium. Then, if every critiquer that called this a "GREAT SHOT" would re-cant and call it a "GREAT PAINTING", there would be no argument. It's the arrogance of trying to justify calling these compositions "photographs" that stirs up vehement reactions from those of us who respect the "ART OF PHOTOGRAPHY", which this is not.

-----

 

I think that says it exactly.

 

Now regarding the photo errr picture, it's a nice picture but the water does not work because of the lack of shadows on the ripples. Shadows would break the reflection up and it would look more natural...

 

I'm no expert that's just my opinion. I guess pictures like this are designed to captured our imagination, are they not!!

The picture is PERFECT and this forum RICH

 

Congratulations Al!!

This is an incredible moment... I'm truly happy for your eyes, that can see so incredible ladscape and imagine amazing things! Incredible work!
Congratilation!!

Prevor drake

What we are dealing with in any photographic image is an illusion of some kind of reality or an inner vision of the photographer, whether it is black & white, color film, digital capture, straight, or Photoshopped. In order to actually be able to look into the image and appreciate it, the viewer has to be able to accept this illusion rather than first keying into the technique used to render it. This image fails the test. While others have questioned the clouds and water, I can accept them without hesitation. The thing that bothers me is the lightness/contrast of the boat. It has clearly been singled out with a mask and that makes it look like it's been pasted into the shot, though I suspect it was in fact there in reality. I would love to see the original transparency. I'll bet it would be a more successful image than the processed version.

 

I guess the bottom line for me is that if a heavily Photoshopped image is to be accepted as a successful illusion of the photographer's inner vision, and therefore be readily accepted by the viewer, then the PS work has to be impeccable, with masterful subtlety and attention to detail. In this image, the instant I look at it is screams Photoshop (or more to the point, fake), which detracts from the ability of this viewer to accept the image and really look into it.

 

Other than that, it is a nice enough scene, but I can only look at so many attempts to create perfect sublime moments before it becomes clich頡nd boring.

Nice cretion.

Someone way back when said it might be too blue, and I'd tend to agree with that one. As far as being fake, well the clouds look real enough, as far as the boat and all that...it looks more like a clay boat than a computer generated boat, which wouldn't really work. But all in all, very beautiful and calming.

The bottom line is.

 

Do you like it?

 

Would you pay money for it?

 

Would you hang it on your wall and want to look at it?

 

Can you do as well or better?

 

Photography is a means of helping people create an image they see in their brain, the capture is the first part, it may be the end part, or it may be the first stage. What counts is the end result, do YOU like it?

 

I do.

Beautiful shot