single photos Untitled

Congrats for this marvellous moment... out of "Amelie Poulain". Not for the colors, but for the contrast in the sky and fairy-like atmosphere giving by the differently blurred parts.

A dream come true.

a pure miracle !

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.

Interesting image, but I don't like the crop.

I like the concept, the motion, and for the most part the execution. The darker clouds in the upper right corner I find very distracting. They remind me of hurried PS cloning which can easily produce a sort of telltale "banding". I'm not saying it is or that I have any problem with using PS. However, if it is cloning I think it should have been done more carefully. If it is not PS cloning then I think the darker clouds maybe should have been cloned out.

It is very good, but here is one that captures the same mood without the artificial ambience, in my opinion:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2587518

I do not understand what many commentators see as "unique" in this image?

 

However, I do think that it is a wonderful image, and one that is worthy of merrit!

 

Regards, Nick.

Wolfgang: Rich's images are very good also. There is no need to try to compare both works regarding ratings. That's useless and unfair.

 

Now, about the picture:

 

It's 'pastel', 'cool' look is really beautiful and provokes good feeling in me. The composition, although, seems strange. The tight, very horizontal crop from the legs only is interesting, but I believe there should be some more space in the upper margin. It's too tight there, in my opinion.

 

Nice image in general. I don't mind about the manipulation.

Gotta disagree with you there, Lannie. While I like the photo you offer for comparison, I wouldn't say it's trying for the same effect as Agnes's photo. Agnes's photo has a surreal quality, which is what makes it unusual. The girl in Agnes's photo may be running after the dog, but may also have just dropped out of the sky, or may be about to launch herself back to her spaceship. Is that a skirt she's wearing, a parachute, or a power pod? Her blurred hands don't look quite human; is she a space alien? We don't, after all, know what her head looks like. That's what I think makes this picture so fun. The picture you offer, on the other hand, is a charming picture of a young woman frolicking on the beach, but it's not all that unusual, and I would go so far to say that it's really of a different subject.

 

And as to the comment (not by Lannie!) way earlier criticizing the photo because the girl's right leg was out of focus: Oh, please! The blur is where the art lies in this photo.

Absolutely love it! I agree with others on the surreal feel of the image, and it's ability to evoke emotions. That's very high praise for an image, and this POW deserves it.

 

Although Agnes' picture is certainly in a different class, it also reminds me of one of my own mediocre attempts to capture that kind of scene - of course among other things I was lacking the model ;-)

 

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3105082-md.jpg

Agnes... i wouldn't change a thing... it's perfect as it is.... it makes me want to

just keep looking at it.... i would certainly buy this and hang it on my wall.... 7/7

Obviously this is NOT a photograph - in its conventional sense. Heres a link to how the image was constructed - http://www.donnadieustudio.com/digital3.shtml

 

I don't have anything against digital manipulation. Maybe we should call this section the "IMAGE of the week" instead of "PHOTOGRAPH of the week" to forestall any future discussions about digital manipulation.

 

Cheers,Sreenivas

Thanks for the link Sreenivas. Yes Agne's image selected by the elves as "Photograph of the Week" shows that she has great visualisation and good photoshop skills but that many posters in this thread are giving her credit for capturing the image in camera instead of a being a lovely image made from a combination of three mediocre photographs.

 

I agree with your recommendation that this forum be renamed "Image of the Week" for your stated reasons.

A very interesting comment from Sreenivas just above. In fact many institutions thinking about renaming "Photography" Schools to something like "Visualisation" or along that line.

 

Unless you work in documentary or for papers I think there is no doubt that its not really from interest how the image is done, but what you create in the viewers mind.

 

I believe thats how you have to look at a visualisation, like the one from agnes. I think its a marvelous example. It creates a mood that triggers mot only feelings and the sense of looking at something you have not seen before, but like people mentioned before me a "surreal effect", that makes your brain go "tick-tack" ;-))...

Anytime a piece of art does that, its merit is proven already... no need to discuss it. I disagree therefor with the Photo.net introduction that this "visalisation" is not really one of the best... The image is a standout and cant be overlooked, where so many bird-pictures and landscapes and whatever other pictures (everyone can chip in at least some of his stuff)... are not worth a second look, despite the 6's and 7's they create in the "judging" section.

 

We talk about present and future of photography. Its the question how can we use the tools even better we have at hand now to create what is in our minds-eye. So digital yes or not should not be ven a discussion. Digital is here! YES!! GREAT!!... What can we do with it. Photographers all over the world are exploring this possibilities. Agnes gives one possible and very nice answer to this.

Now we're getting into some discussions I've had with my local photography group. The traditionalists vs the digitalists. Both photography? This image, while very well done, is what I call "cut and paste" photography. It is not surreal in the sense of Jerry Uelsmann's work but merely employs parts of images and places them in a eye pleasing manner. Is it creative--sure. But is it a photograph or an image?

I agree with the above comment. This image is pleasing and deserves all the praise it is receiving. But a purist may frown and not call this an excellent photograph.

I find the way the girl extended her hands very feminine, in an interesting, adolescent way. The rotundness of her skirt and the slenderness of her legs also make for a striking juxtaposition.

 

I would rather this were a real scene rather than a composite, but I could live with it either way.

I don't really care for this, sorry. The entire thing looks cut and pasted.. which it was. At least make it look somewhat realistic. What's with the background/horizon line blur?? And rather than this ballet suit or whatever it is she is wearing, why not something remotely realistic for this setting??

 

I can see why some might like this, considering it has a fairytale atmosphere with movement in a seaside setting. But in my mind the fairytale aspect here is just overwhelmed by the cut and paste. Not a good thing.

Agnes

 

Congratulations on your exceptionally creative image. This image conveys a wonderful, dreamy quality without being forced. There are many stories that it can tell, I get a feeling of being on top of the world in command of life. The dog representing nature that flows with us. I would be interested to know what it evokes in you, as well as others. Best regards, Morey.

This image is not only about "like me", "look at how beautiful my legs are", or the landscapes I'm in, or how sharp everything is.

 

Agnes tried to evoke something behond the things you see... this might work for some, not for others... it does not matter. I admire the attempt and it works for me..

Interesting picture, Agnes; very lively indeed.

I disagree with Srinivas, photomontage is far from being a product of the digital age, being well established many decades previously. The modern master of this technique is of course, Jerry Uelsmann

This picture reminded me of something, and it is in Jerry Uelsmann's gallery No. 5 at http://www.uelsmann.net/; the photomontage of the woman with the wave breaking near/over her.

Yet another good vehicle for discussion. Successful creation that demonstrates that content is often more important than technical perfection. Invokes feelings so well summarized by Morey. The dog isn't just another part of the scenery or nature, he is a tireless companion sharing enjoyment and that completes the image, which might have originated in a series of shots of the girl alone.

I'm not normally a fan of Photoshop, in fact I really dislike the vast majority of what I see in it; generally it's just crass distortion of reality by people obsessed with technology and no artistic ability. But this is beautiful! Art at its best and I don't care what tools you used. I'd have this on my wall any day. Congratulations. I've given it one of my VERY rare 7/7's

If the purpose of the photographer is to provoke the viewer's mind,say, like in Dominic Rouse's works, than there's nothing wrong, imo, to use collages as a means to do it. But making a collage of an outdoor scene, thus trying to convey some mood/emotions to the viewer, means you're discarding the essence of photography. Because you should manipulate the light or you should combine the light from different (in this case 3) pictures. There's a shadow behind the girl's leg, a real one, and there's a shadow behind the dog, added in PS. The clouds from another photo are pasted (and merged) here but the horizon line appears behind them. We love kids, we love dogs, and we love stormy sea. Why not love the combined product of them? Especially, as some say, it's a piece of art.Maybe, it's some kind of art, but I doubt it's a photographic one. Regards. Blago

I agree with Blago. It's a very good surrealistic image but not in a photographical manner. I would like to see such image done in the real world, seen by a photographer's eye. This one is "just" a stunning digital picture. Regards,