single photos Untitled

I think it looks more like a still frame from an computer animated movie than a photograph. The girl looks very much like a marionette, especially the hands/fingers. (is this what the artist was after?)

 

On the other hand, it conveys a dreamy, carefree feeling, and as a work of art is very well done indeed. As a work of art, it is beautiful. As a photoshop work of art, it is pretty good also. As a photograph - well, I wouldn't judge this as a photograph. Where I think thais image excels is in the execution.

 

Scott

I'm going to abstain from commenting on this work for the time being. But I will applaud Rich for daring to stick his neck out to say something different (that's not to say that I agree with him). So many of the earlier comments gushed with sugary, over enthusiastic praises that seemed to lack grounding in honest, attentive, objective, and yes critical appreciation that makes a discussion meaningful. It was a bit oppressive.

Sorry to "oppress" you Juun but it is a lovely photo.

 

Josef

Here is an "image" I put together in a 3D application. No camera was used for any part of

the scene, no photo textures were used. Everything was generated in the program. This is

a crude example of what can be done to create photorealistic images. the elements in this

image are assembled and resemble real objects (or could if I spent a couple of more hours

on it) does this mean it is a photograph?

I guess they don't want me to show you the image. Sorry I tried to load the file didn't work,

but you get the point.

I am astounded that so many "photographers" are threatened by the creative means with which a finished pre thought-out image has been created and presented in order to provoke, emulate or stimulate a response. After all, even a camera using light sensitive materials is just a recording device to control what's been framed within the rectangle. Digital cameras are another type of recording device that create imagery, but should they be considered photographic, because they no longer use light sensitive material to record their imagery. I think we're already outside the traditional box, let's see where this can take us and how much creativity and thought provoking art can elevate us. Seems like a lot of folks need to let their definition of photographic imagery go. What's happening in the world now is destroying the myth of the box as the one and only true "photography". Again, get past the technicalities, and see how the image speaks to you (or maybe not!) and how it might suggest even physical and visual incongruities. Skys the limit!

Avatar, we are still inside the box. Photography is about catching the light. It doesn't matter if the device is film or digital camera. We are not painters. But it does not mean that only painting is art. This is a composite image, that is hard to achieve without making mistakes in light, shadows etc. It looks surreal only because it was not seen and shot by photographer in the real world. It's surreal only because it is composite and because of heavy PS work. There are no photographical skills in it, so sorry about saying nothing. Regards,

Uh, digital cameras do use light-sensitive material to record the images. It's a light-sensitive array of electronic sensors. Much like grains of silver, a physical change occurs when light strikes them.

 

Digital cameras record it differently, but in the case of anything you've seen on this web site, all that means is that it was turned into digital a bit sooner than it would have been otherwise.

Maybe I'm not cut out for surrealism, but this image does nothing for me. Other posters have raved about the emotional content of the image compensating for the technical flaws (the horizon blurring is especially obvious), yet I find it hard to see true emotion in something so stylised and artificial. The strange clothes, the weird hand positions - they don't say "whimsy" to me, they *jar*.

The striking thing for me about the views expressed in many of the comments above is

that, like the wider digital/traditional debate, they tend to be very polarised. On one hand

there are those who say they have no problem with heavy manipulation/ montage as long

as it's well done: "it's the feeling evoked by the image that counts". On the other hand,

there are those who adopt a more traditional view of photography as "true record"

(perhaps even if the scene is staged or the image later selectively cropped, dodged,

burned, etc). Each camp, however, seems pretty reluctant to acknowledge the validity of

the other, or at least to acknowledge why both camps are so powerful in attracting

adherents. I think that the differences between the two groups diminish as the subject

matter becomes more abstract or surreal, but an image like that submitted by Agnes

which represents a very human scene (irrespective of whether or not it is intended to be

recognised as a montage) clearly raises hackles.

 

My instinctive tendency is to fall towards the second camp, but I agree with Mark

Michaelson's observation above that many of us (myself included) spend a lot of time

arming ourselves with technical knowledge and unsuccessfully trying to capture, rather

than actively to create, art. I think it is fair to say that this approach is a tough one - truly

great images are rare but enormously satisfying (so I am told!). I believe a big reason why

we do this is because one of the most attractive things about photography is that it is

capable of capturing and showing real moments, just as they were. This is very

emotionally satisfying for the viewer. If a photographic image speaks to us, it is inspiring

often because it demonstrates that the scene captured is possible. Something moving or

meaningful happened and could therefore happen again. That is inspiring not just from a

photographic point of view but from a human point of view. It gives us hope.

 

In some ways a well-executed manipulated/ montaged image can be more immediately

powerful. A beautiful creation can show us things that we would probably never be able to

capture on film in years of waiting for the right moment. It can therefore evoke remakably

strong feelings and be truly inspiring. (Obviously, advertisers are well aware of this

phenomenon.) However, if I am aware that a beautiful image is a confection, my feelings

are often bittersweet. They are tinged with the disappointment that comes of knowing

that what I am looking at never happened and may never happen. It's a bit like the

disappointment I feel when I emerge from a transporting film like the Lord of the Rings

and am forced to remember that Middle Earth is a fantasy. Of course I wouldn't argue that

the movie should never have been made, but I would be happier if I could convince myself

that such a world existed somewhere.

 

I quite like the image submitted by Agnes - it says something to me. I would like it even

more if I believed it wasn't a montage.

get off it people and get with the times. photography refers to the lens whilst film is quite simply the same as paper. references to writing center on the writing instrument, pen, quill, pencil, not the substrate, paper. photography=light writing, writing with light. lens and light=stylus, pencil, pen, quill, etc. film=paper, canvas, papyrus, clay. once this truth has been absorbed by yon shallow minds, this argument will cease.

"I would like it even more if I believed it wasn't a montage."

 

this sentiment is akin to a mother whose wish for her newborn is to remain an infant forever. whilst photography's genesis was in the transcription of reality, it has matured and should no longer be held to its former characteristics. to insist a photograph be rigorously based in reality is to treat it like a child. would we regard the artistry on the ceiling of the cistine chapel more if we discovered the artist used a room full of models in its creation, or less as we realize he used one model at a time and "montaged" them together?

Thank you for enlightening us, Alasdair. I know that I certainly gained new creative insights from your two contributions.

After looking at this image several times this week and viewing agnes's portfolio ... I will say I'm in the "image" camp, the ART argument I'll leave to others, as we all have a different view of what is art. Much has been discussed about a surrealistic look that can be "created" by a digital process ... My taste run more to say William Egglestons work ... from the mundane to the surreal using a more traditional method. That said I agree it's a brave new world, and that the digimage IS the a tsunami of the future, it is what most people want to see and create.

"to insist a photograph be rigorously based in reality is to treat it like a child. would we regard the artistry on the ceiling of the cistine chapel more if we discovered the artist used a room full of models in its creation, or less as we realize he used one model at a time and "montaged" them together?"

 

This is a silly argument. Photography from the very beginning has had practicioners who've tried to imitate painting -- it's not a new thing at all. However, then and now, many people feel that the medium draws its unique power from its capacity to invoke "the real" in certain ways that other art forms cannot.

 

If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?

I can respect people's viewpoint regarding heavy manipulation of images for artistic purposes, though after a point I find it a stretch to regard it as photography anymore. Painting with pixels can yield some interesting results, but they tend to be more curiousities to me rather than lasting and compelling subjects.

 

Regarding this particular construct, my first impression was of the an old Post magazine cover or ad from the 50's... a nice bouncy, free and happy feel. It works in that manner, as graphic art. -Greg-

Cute shot. Looks like a post card I'd see for sale on a rack next to the register at some foofy accesories costume jewelery shop on Union Street. I'd have more admiration for it if not so obviously heavily manipulated. Not a negative per se but it makes it a digital graphic image and not a slightly tweaked photograph in my book. Does my book matter to you? Probably not. But that does not matter either.

" Photography from the very beginning has had practicioners who've tried to imitate painting"

 

for everything there is a beginning and an end. whatever photography's beginnings it is now moving on. should painters be required to use cave walls? the medium will continue to draw its unique power from its capacity to invoke "the real" but it does not exclude its capacity to create realism. if there was a lens there was photogrpahy. it is not about film.

 

"If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?"

 

Indeed I am although it might change how much I would pay for it

"If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?"

"Indeed I am although it might change how much I would pay for it."

That sure sounds to me like you'd change your evaluation of it!

"That sure sounds to me like you'd change your evaluation of it!"

 

sir, if you would pay the same for a one of a kind oil as for a photograph manipulated to look like an oil then i will thank you not to manage my affairs. an oil painting is an oil painting is not a photograph. if i paid the same for them i do not expect my orange to taste like my apple. if i pay more for my apple i do not expect it to taste like my pear.

Completely agree! And a one of a kind photograph produced by capturing the actual event as it happened when it happened is not a manipulated image in which things were cut and pasted to make something appear as it did not happen. Big difference! Seems we agree 100%.

By the way, there's no special place in heaven for "straight" photographs -- there's all sorts of "important art" that incoporates photographic imagery in various ways. But it's perfectly reasonable for people to say that THIS image, were it a photograph, would appeal to them more than it does as a work of photoshop montage. And it's equally reasonable for people to like it for what it is.

I don't think the disagreement is not as simple as "digitalist" versus "traditionalist". I may accept both apples and oranges, but I'd like to know that an apple is an apple, and orange is an orange, so that oranges can be compared to oranges, and so complementarily.

 

What do you think of this? Joel-Peter Witkin's photographs are extraordinary not only be he dreamed up such magnificent and bizarre images, but he created the sets, found the props, went to the morgues to find the corpses, spent hours handling them, sought out and befriended the incredible people who graced his works, directed these people, and then took the picture. Somebody else could dream up equally bizarre and beautiful images, but this person's process entails acquiring stock images from others and cutting and pasting elements of those images together to realize his the initially imagined image. Do they deserve equal merit? Personally speaking, it doesn't seem that hard to dream up bizarre/surreal images.

 

And with all due respect, Beau, and I do mean that sincerely, even if Michaelangelo painted the models individually rather than collectively, he still "painted" them. He didn't just paste them up.

 

Somebody had pointed out earlier that separate images pasted together have a tendency to look surreal without any effort from the artist. I think that's good point.

 

As for the image, it's nice. It catchy. Maybe even "lovely". But some of the remarks left earlier like "spectacular", "7/7", "Too wonderful for words", "Perfect!" kinda weirds me out. I say, keep it real.

I don't consider this as a photography. It's the same as if you want me to evaluate a sculpture. But ...

 

I like the pose and "cropped" upper half of the girl's body. It gives the picture a very strange feeling. But if I look closer there's very obvious bad (and brute) use of techniques (if I can evaluate this because there are no photographical skills to evaluate only PS computer-based skills). So the feeling is getting worse with every next look. It's good for advertising, to evoke emotions at the first sight. But it's hard to be a photographic art.

"And with all due respect, Beau, and I do mean that sincerely, even if Michaelangelo painted the models individually rather than collectively, he still "painted" them. He didn't just paste them up."

 

Juun, it wasn't me that wrote the thing about Michelangelo, it was the guy I disagreed with.