Restaurant Sagres

Nice work!

Muy artistica y original Pedro, tiene mayor riqueza que la foto original, definitivamente bien pensado y buena tecnica. Vaya expresion la de tu hija, se divertia mucho.

I have looked at your portrait - the only available photograph in your space to judge what YOU can do on film. If you did this directly on film there is something seriously wrong!

Obviamente le diste un toque personal, y no uno dejado al capricho del software. Me gustan los retoques de las hojas; lo �nico que cambiarí¡ es la mejilla de tu hija en el retoque, quizá³ hacer el contraste menos evidente.

Saludos.

Just an awesome artistic achievement. Good for you to lead the way on digitally altered photos. Maybe this will change the minds of the PNers who don't consider this type of work as legitimate.

Taking the original snap and turning it into a work of art is great. But if you use PS where do you draw the line? I had a potrait up that was PS'ed and everyone made a huge fuss about it so it was taken down. So is this www.anythinggoes.net or photo.net? BTW I can think of at least two ways to do my portait in camera, on film. PS was only used to join 8-12 photos, nothing else. Oh and it wasn't me...

Well done!

Thank you for your answer. PN states a more or less clear and strict definition of an unmanipulated photograph. Everything else should be considered as manipulated and there is no upper limit of manipulation. Logically, unmanipulated photographs should be judged with different criteria than manipulated ones because they require different kind of equipment and skill. A viewer may prefer to spend his/her time on one or the other kind of images and can like or dislike an image in each category. But, I think it is wrong to condemn a picture simply because it is manipulated. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with 'your' portrait; it is actually quite interesting. All I ment to say is that the final result looks heavily 'manipulated' (far from reality recorded on film) even if the technique was quick and simple.

"IMHO if you can do it in camera, on film, it counts, else NOT!"

 

The history of photography shows that right from the start the camera is only the first stage of the process of creating a photographic image. Ansell Adams called the negative 'the score' and the print 'the performance' and used elaborate printing techniques to achieve his results. Hand retouching by artists goes back to the early days of photography when lantern slides were often partially photo, partially painting and this continued in other forms right up to the 1970's and 80's when that skill was superseded by PS. PS is just a simpler. more powerful way of continuing this aspect of photography. (Pedro, Bravo - a shot full of life!)

I don't think this is a matter of manipulated vs. unmanipulated for me (because, well, I don't care) as much as it is a matter of a snapshot with a couple PS filters being on the TRP page. That is a joke. I am not meaning to attack the photographer/PS'er, only the pnet ratings game that holds this up as one of the best images on the site. This is not new, cutting edge, whatever - the idea comes straight out of Filter Gallery in PS, whether other work was done or not. I think I had not discovered this effect by the time I hit 14 in Paint Shop Pro 3, but I can not date it as any more current than that. I have no problem sharing pnet space with both well manipulated photos and good very maniplated photos - especially since I feel the need to airbrust a limb or add a cheesy vingette every once in a while -, but this is a badly manipulated snapshot.

 

Pedro, I believe that it was a good effort and you are doing well at building your skills in both photography (from your portfolio) and PS. I don't mean to attack you personally and I wouldn't if this image was being held up as some masterpiece instead of a decent image with a cheesy effect. I know that my photos are pretty midlevel as skill goes on this site, but I don't expect them to pop up on TRP. ever.

This is fantastic, a real impresionist artwork. Congratulations

A wonderful piece of art, Pedro!!!

Is not the first time that you rated me with 1/1. I respect your opinion. I have nothing to say about the 1/1. But I would like to know why. Have a good day.

 

Pedro, I rated the piece 1/1 because it was not a photo and had nothing to do with photography--it was no more a photo than an impressionist painting based on a photo would be a photo. What you did in PS could not be done by traditional or even standard PS methods. It was basically a computer made faux impressionist painting. I don't think it has anything to do with photography so I gave it a 1/1. I have enjoyed and rated a number of your photos highly, but this particular one I didn't feel belonged on the site or the TRP.

 

I should have left a comment with the rating, but I was in a hurry at work. Sorry.

I said before that I respect your opinion. This explanation is the only thing that I wanted. Thanks.

Hace casi un mes que no me paseaba por PN, me ha llamado la atencion esta foto y he estado leyendo los comentarios, lo de Robert, el personaje ese que te ha rateado 1/1 tiene delito, sobre todo porque se me ha occurrido ir a su portafolios y tiene cientos de fotos que 鬠llama impresionistas manupuladas con PS. Eso en mi pueblo se llama CINISMO. 7/7 para compensar.

Interesting thread. I must say I like very much this picture. To me the right discussion is that it is a very good image where colours and composition works very well. The question to me is why it does work as a painting (please imagine it is a real oil painting and you will really love its tension in form and colour) but it does not as a photo (the original photo is quite dull) This should put in question some of our "religious" thoughts in photography. We as photographers should open our aesthetic judgement.

This is an excellent picture, be it a photo or a painting or whatever. Who cares.

great image excellent manipulated!

 

saludos