single photos Untitled

Yes the image is a good vehicle for discussion. I'm a bit disappointed with the earlier posters who gushed and gave it 7s, because I think they just rated it on a glance. It's a nice idea, the composition is intriguingly offbeat, but the execution is flawed. If you look closely, as we tend to on this forum, it's clearly a cut and paste job: as with a magic trick, when you can see how it's done, it's not magic any more.

Photoshop is great for creating montages that could not possibly exist in the real world. There are several PN members who are quite good at this.

 

But here there are too many obvious places where we're looking at an attempt to fix the image rather than create something. Too many muddy and blurry areas.

 

I like the composition and think that the careful selection of model, wardrobe, dog, and weather would make for a worthwhile photo shoot.

I agree with those who say the idea is good but the image fails in execution. I can't see any reason for the blurred horizon other than to hide the cut and paste of the sky. Reminds me of the POW a few months back with all of the cloned boats-- once the PS work becomes apparent, everything falls apart. I guess the moral is if you're going to use PS for major manipulation, you'd better be good at it.

 

I'm disappointed in all of the gushing as well and glad I'm not alone in thinking that this work is a little slipshod.

"If you try hard... you will be able to see flaws in anything thats inspiring or beautiful for a reason...."

This are not my words, but the words of a good friend of mine,... I will never forget her words, as they hit the nail on the head and left a deep impression on me.

Yes the image is technically not 100 percent perfect, but it evokes what it should evoke and it touches where its meant to touch..

I'm terrible sorry, but where many see a not quite perfect PS work,I see finally an image that does define itself not only on a technical level, but tries to send a message... I see joy...I see imagination... I see positive energy... I hear barking and splashing and I smell the water.... sorry guys, think I'm terribly unintrested in the minor technical flaws of this composit. ;-)))...maybe I just did not go to the beach for long time?? :-))))

I guess I like to send a message to the merit of content in our images. Again I have to include myself. I would be proud to have an image in my collection that creates so much besides the things that are obvious to any viewers eyes.

..Too passionate now??...;-))

But a German shepherd going tail-high away from the camera? I don't know, friends.

 

Here is another of Agnes' photos that got a lot of attention but also has problems:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744382

 

If realism v. surrealism were the only issues here, then the photoshopping issue would not bother me a bit. I shop a lot of my own pictures to some extent.

 

A lot of Agnes' work in this same folder is very good, in my opinion.

 

Congratulations on PoW, Agnes. I don't mean for the nits on this one to mean that I don't appreciate your artistic vision. As is so often the case, I simply wish that the elves had picked another photo by the photographer who got PoW.

Agnes, here is a much better shot by you, in my opinion:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744388

 

You have asked us to take the surreal seriously, and for that I am grateful.

Felix

 

I see your point, but, for me, the image looked funny from the start. The blurs didn't seem to make any sense on first viewing, which made it difficult to suspend my disbelief. And, in a fantasy image like this, you have to be able to suspend your disbelief. As someone pointed out in the thread on the POW I referenced above, it is like seeing the boom mike in a movie. Suddenly, you're no longer on a South Sea island, but on the backlot at MGM.

 

I really like the composition (I tend to compose like this myself) and I think this is what a lot of people react to here on a gut level. It's just that it is too easy to see the man behind the curtain (another movie reference)...

This is a beautiful composite. (Look at the photographer?s site, under digital. She has the three original pictures posted: http://www.donnadieustudio.com/digital3.shtml). Too bad she did not provide the details here. I like the image posted, but I do not think people should give credit for ?capturing the moment?. ?Expressing a feeling?, perhaps! This artist is capable of expressing her vision(s) beautifully. Bravo! Though the end product is what matters, this is not a display gallery and many people here do like to learn. For me the image scores high praise for what it conveys and how it was created.

The horizon and the sea do not blend well in the photo and I not do like a lot the composite in this point. Sea is out of focus and clouds are in focus. This is the worst point of the composite actually. I would prefer an out of focus image on the clouds as well maybe. I think though that the girl is wonderfully pasted and the crop till her waste was very intelligent and this really makes for a strong photo. The dog I think that it does not add a lot to the picture. When I try to imagine the photo without the dog I believe that it is more strong as a surrealistic-minimalistic image.

 

All in all.... although I disagree on certain parts of the image I believe it is a very interesting work of art and I would like to congratulate for the result and the pow.

The image at first glance seemed to be a manipulated image. If you take enough images,

it is easy to see what is normally feasible to capture on a single shot. There are areas here

that the in and out of focus areas are unreasonable. I think the idea is clever, and the

thumbnail is captivating. The larger image is somehow false. It is interesting how so

many do not seem to take notice.

I'm not a big fan of composite images with a lot of photoshop work. It's a beautiful image, but it's not great work. I've seen a lot of this kind of work when I was at school and personally, it just does nothing for me. It's not original at all. I have to agree with Rich on this one. The image is out of focus and it seems like the artist is trying to make something work out of nothing or maybe she just took it one step too far in PS. Although she does have great work on her site, I just don't believe this is her strongest one.

Childhood ...

 

Freedom ...

 

A long time ago ...

 

Thank you!

You brought me back there ...

i really like this shot. theres something very playful about it. and the waves and such flowing areound the figures make it very dream like. very well done :)

adam

The picture struck me from the begining, perhaps in more of a subconscious way, as being a bit odd, as if all the pieces didn't really fit together. I don't mind manipulation at all, but the whole point of a good photograph is that the pieces do all work together.

 

I like the idea, and this is a good attempt at it (better than some of her other works I've seen), but it doesn't quite click for me. I'd rate it an "ok" photograph at best.

I like how the arms are sort of detached from the body and how the compositional elements are "out of balance."*

I don't get this one at all. That ballet-dancer pose doesn't fit with someone who would run fully-clothed into the ocean with her dog.

Unless she is reluctantly following her dog into the water, afraid of getting wet.

My theory is that the elves preferred this one by Agnes, but felt a bit sheepish about offering it up to the rest of us:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744382

As expressed before, the out of focus areas and the multi-directional lighting fatally flaw this piece (for me). I'm at a loss to appreciate it for anything more than the idea of the composition.

I thought this was a very interesting image when I first saw it a few months ago. At that time I was not sure what to make of it technically, so I think I ignored the technical aspects in order to ponder the artistic ones. This photograph (and photographer) definitely has a unique style that draws the eye. The out of focus blurry version shown here almost appears to be a quick mock-up for an art directors approval before moving on to a more polished final version. In some ways I like the impressionistic nature of this rendering, because it has a certain fluid and organic quality about it. It is somewhat difficult to really evaluate (or appreciate) such small images on a computer monitor.

 

I am surprised that so many people are bothered by the technical aspects of this composition. After all, according to her website: AGNES DONNADIEU has been named No1 Technical Digital Artist for (the) year 2002 by the International Live magazine. Who are we to argue with The International Live Magazine?

 

I guess what impresses me the most is the photographers originality and the choices made when putting this image together. I am very thankful for the differences between fashion photography and documentary photography. The major shortcoming here appears to be the failure to meet the expectations of the technician within us, as opposed to the desire for the emotional connection of the artist we hope to be. Think about how much better and longer art survives when compared to technology and you will have the answer to which matters the most.

With respect to Rich's comments: Why do we confuse the technology of photography with art? It's like mixing engineering with architecture. This is called photo dot net, not art dot net - yet we welcome and desire art. The gallery is full of the most appealing images. The bulk of the members, fantasizing about being artists, are primarily technicians. I myself have no artistic talent, although I wish I did. What Agnes did was art - not necessarily technical camera work. She is to be commended for her art. The bulk of us continue to plod along waiting for that exposure that actually looks like it could be art, while we fret over lens resolution, camera battery substitutes, developers, scanner resolution, digital technology... Most of us never develop the eye to produce art. Good job Agnes. Whether posed or PS'd or not, the image conveys an attractive composition. In or out of focus, the image is eye candy.

Joyful and charming work. I had no idea it was a cut and paste, sure fooled me. Nice picture, very well done.

Its a beauty this image...isnt it? It devides us. Interesting pieces always did that and will keep doing it. It triggers again the question in me: "What is photography"... "writing with light"... I remember the translation.

The tricky thing is that we get further and further away from that definition. Its not necessairly a bad thing, unless you name yourself a purist.

If we have a close look at Art-Galleries, Fashion shoots and not even to mention advertising, it will be very hard to find any piece of "photograph" that is actually what it should be in respect to the above definition. All of them are altered.

Paintings,photography and any type of visualisation is blending together this days...we are lucky that we can make it out in this photograph, or think we can.

I was recently to a very interesting podium where a famous photographer showed some of his works, a lot of composits. The "freaky" thing was that the components the most listeners though they are digital or manipulated, were true captures and others you thought they are real was PS work.

..at the end it did not matter: At the end its like with everything: Technic is JUST a tool to achieve the result and not the result itself.

It's not the tools I object to here: it's the bad use of them. I'd criticise it just the same if it were a single exposure on a Leica M3 with Tech Pan film, if the composition were not right, or some area that would have been better to be in focus was not.

 

There may be some confusion about this because the problems related to poor technique will be different between the Leica and the Photoshop work. Looking at the picture with the girl with her skirt flying, it's jarring to notice that she's lit from a completely different direction than the man further in the background. That's an error that's easy to make in Photoshop, and very hard to make with a Leica. Pointing it out doesn't mean that the critic hates Photoshop, any more than pointing out a poor depth of field choice means that the critic hates the Leica.

this image is original, perky, and draws the viewer to think happy, especially in a world dominated by horrific events. agnes did a great job with this one.