Smoker

I don't know where to start. But first,

- Yes this is not travel photography and agreed, that photographer never claimed.

- Yes this doesn't qualify as a photograph.

- And then it is a very good PS or photo illustration.

 

Now some 'personal' thoughts ?

Photography has its own place and illustration has its own place. No, we don't need magnifying glasses to enjoy photography, but we need to know beforehand whether there are any substantial additions to the main composition or not. I think it would be a good idea to put that detail [that it is a composite image] would save a lot time for everyone.

 

Mark G you are doing a good job by showing us the other side of the truth, let me present my side of the story? I know if you are working on deadlines and don't have time to wait for the 'right' moment, you have to come up with such solutions. Advertising industry survives on that, there's nothing wrong with that and they have their own place in market. But mind you, we are here on photography website, discussing a photo of the week, NOT photo-illustration of the week. As a photo-illustration, it's a very good piece of work and has its own value in market. But if you start bringing those practices in photography, everything would go chaotic [as it has already started].

 

With that analogy, no one would wait for the right moment; no one would wait for the right light on the right time, or a wait for a perfect moment for moon to rise from a very specific location. Just to photograph moon perfectly from the right spot on the right time, I have waited for almost 3 months, I know if I had deadlines I would insert it in PS. I know photography is not a direct interpretation of reality, but then we have to maintain some guidelines to keep us all sane.

 

Note: this is all according to me.

Dhiren, maybe I'm not hearing exactly what you're saying, but I have to disagree with making such a sharp distinction between "photography" and "photo-illustration," at least for the purposes of this argument. Photo-illustration is a subset of phototraphy, and thereby valid, both on this site, in the POW, and anywhere else. To turn your proof on its head, if it were photo-illustration of the week, and not photograph of the week, then street photography, landscape, portrait, all would be outlaw. But photograph of the week should encompass all categories beneath it, including photo-illustration, photocomposites, photo mosaics, etc. I would draw a line against computer graphics, but photography starts with a camera after which there are countless valid alterations that can be applied, yet there is still, at the heart, a photograph.

Among the other great shots from Morocco in Nour's portfolio. . . .

Or this one. . . .

May be I wasn't clear ... when I say photo-illustration, I mean "An image produced by the use of more than one photograph".

Dhiren, my answer would then probably still be the same. Photography covers all subsets, including images created by joining two or more previously created images.

 

I think many of us have been polluted by an overly strict definition of Photography that has been unduly influenced by photography's historical roots in capturing THE moment, rather than creating A moment.

 

But, as you say, this is all according to me.

All debates about the artistic integrity of photoshop aside... One thing that really bothers

me about Nour's work is how obviously retouched the faces are. There is so much

dodging, burning, softening, that they begin to look more like paintings than

photographs. IMO it cheapens the images and makes them look 'fakey.' (At least, if we

are supposed to believe they are 'pure photos.')

...

It seems clear that it is Nour's intent to make 'dramatic images,' as opposed to dramatic

photos. Perhaps then the real debate should be about how PS (gaussian) blurs the line

between strict photography and 'visual art.' ;-) Is this ethical? Should we even make such a

distinction?

It seems to me that each time a digital composite is photo of the week, one can pretty much count on the age-old argument of 'straight' vs. 'manipulated' photography. And when I say 'age-old', I mean it! As some among you will know, first it was Group f/64 against the soft-focus pictorialists, then 30 years later it was Magnum-style candid photojournalism versus posed photographs, and then in the '90s all the panties were in a twist over the emergence of digicams. To this, I can only say: vide! This is what a true, straight, candid, analog, unmanipulated, photojournalistic, reportage, and above all objective travel photograph should look like! In fact, every photographer should be reduced to the position of camera-operator, and not let his quaint, outdated humanity interfere with the recording of reality.

Or, on the other hand, we could simply abolish the distinction between photography and painting, and just call everything 'visual art'. Heck, why not throw sculpture into the mix, too?

You wrote: "Mind you, we are here on photography website, discussing a photo of the week, NOT photo-illustration of the week. As a photo-illustration, it's a very good piece of work and has its own value in market. But if you start bringing those practices in photography, everything would go chaotic [as it has already started]. With that analogy, no one would wait for the right moment; no one would wait for the right light on the right time, or a wait for a perfect moment for moon to rise from a very specific location."

My view... If photo-montages are accepted as POWs, then it's ok to have a montage as POW - full stop. Nothing stops the management of photo.net to reserve POWs for straight photographs only - that's a simple question of choice. But once the choice was made by photo.net that photo-illustrations are ok, then ok they are - no matter what members think. Imo, montages and heavily manipulated images should be separated from straight photographs on this site, and each of the 2 should have their own POW.

In a way, I agree with you that the arrival of Photoshop creations in some minds has caused quite a mess, but who's fault is that? Not Photoshop's fault: these minds' fault ! I trust, that one can remain sane eventhough he uses PS to create a montage once in a while ! :-)

What makes no sense to me is to have photo-illustrations discredited because they aren't straight photos or having straight photos discredited because they aren't photo-illustrations. Another thing that's bothersome imo is that "originality" of straight photos is often under-rated on PN, while originality of manipulated photos is often over-rated: a straight photo of people flying on a carpet would be very original, whereas a montage showing the same would be rather trite imo - for example. :-) What I like about Nour's montage is that it is well done, and doesn't aim at the surnatural - unlike many other more or less successful montages... Leads me to say that sometimes, originality/cleverness with PS in hands consists in remaining simple...

Could W. Eugene Smith's Dr. Albert Schweitzer Marking Timbers during Construction Project, 1954 "win" the POW? It is a darkroom composite of at least two different images: the silhouette of the hands and saw handle have been superimposed on the finished print.

OH...I myself wouldn't discredit anyone's work, whether it's manipulated or not or whether it's straight or composited. It's a very well done montage, if photographer wouldn't have mentioned that, I don't think we would have figured that out and I respect his straight-forwardness.

 

IMO, problem with such composites is, after you realise, that its a composite, it loses its charm [iMO], [mind you, not being judgemental here] ... just being honest.

 

Everyone creates their own boundaries and lives comfortably within it and I just expressed mine ... no itention of imposing it.

 

PS: Dodging or blurring of texture also bothers me ... but its personal taste.

Ronnie, a lot of us who have no problems with manipulation feel that this particular photo is somewhat incongruous in its placement of a man who could pass as a Moroccan hashish dealer at Aswan in southern Egypt, thousands of miles away. By any criterion, that is a curious choice when designing a montage.

Moderator Note - Ok - This argument can go on forever and is more suited to the Philosophy of Photography forum. Please critique the image and since it is a montage - how well was it done...or not..as well as other aspects of the image itself. Thanks.

It is a curious choice. We have no idea what was going on in Nour's head when he clicked the shu... um, I mean, the mouse button to create this image. That the story behind this photo is told in a (visual) language I do not understand detracts from my enjoyment of it, just as trying to read A Thousand Nights and a Night in Arabic is, to me, of limited fun. Richard F. Burton has done a pretty good job of making me appreciate that book, though, so I'm still hoping someone (possibly Nour himself) can explain his reasoning behind this composite.

Personally, on a technical issue, I'm also not too fond of those things I do understand about this photo, especially what some have referred to as 'softness' but is in fact the utter lack of grain.

This guy looks exactly like Joe Camel. Great picture.

Lannie: to me, technical dexterity (be it in the field, in the studio, in the darkroom, or in digital imaging software) always takes a back seat to unique artistic vision.

Personally, my perception of this image would not change, had it been created in its current form with the single click of a shutter and not been manipulated later. Some choose to create art with paint and canvas, others with a camera, and yet others with a camera and a computer. That's for each to decide on his own. What matters to me is the artistic vision behind this image. Currently, I don't understand it - but will be happy to have it explained to me. Until then, it will just remain a pretty picture to me, and I can only critique its superficial aspects (such as the lack of grain I mentioned earlier, which I personally find distracting).

Nour, if there's a story behind this photo, please tell it!

Critique the image, Which image? The Moroccan or the Egyptian? The dark alley or the portrait? Remember: there are two images here. But if you insist on forcing us to consider them as one, I have one word.

Pedestrian.

I'd say there'd be... oh... about eleven million dark alleys in Morocco/Egypt. And there... ah... about a hundred million grizzled smokers in Morocco/Egypt. Not having to go out and find one of each at the same time makes the job easier.

So, an easy job. How well is it done? Not really all that well. There is a factor of interest in the "alien culture" aspect of the picture, the "Mysterious East" type of thing, but not much more than a factor. Taking that out, what are left with? A guy smoking and a guy sitting. We can't really say much more than that because we don't know which one's from where and whether they're in any relationship to their original placements in the original pics.

The topic asked us to discuss raising "...the artistic level of a travel image above the level of a standard postcard. What defines good travel imagery in your opinion?"

I, for one, discussed the concept, and offered the advice that - having established the concept - Nour Eddine El Ghoumari should now go out and try to capture it for real.

I think it's unfair to ask us to stick to the "image" as you call it, as if it was a photograph taken in real time when we are cheerfully told it was not. You may as well stick the IBM logo up there, call it "Photograph of the Week" and demand we criticise it as a photograph, when it is obviously not. Or put up a picture of a tree and require us to critique it as a picture of a Boeing 747: "Sorry, that doesn't look like a Boeing 747...". What else can we say? The elves asked the question about "travel" photography and this thread is the consequence of it.

To address Doug's concerns, how far back need we go before the "image" ceases to be a photograph and becomes something else? If it turned out that Nour Eddine El Ghoumari did not take either or both of the original base pictures, would be still be happily instructed to ignore that and give him credit for pasting together two shots taken by someone else? Or is it important that the original shots were taken by the photographer whose name appears under the composite "image"? How far back does the morality thing go, Doug? How far back does it go before the "image" drifts out of the realm of photography into "illustrative graphics". If everything is acceptable, if everything is moral, or OK to do, then there ARE no standards, and we shouldn't be asked to draw imaginary ones in order to judge a picture's worth. We have here a fake picture and are asked to judge it by real standards. All that can be said in response to this challenge is, "Pedestrian". If you're going to be asked to critique composites as "photographs" then the standards have to be really, really high.

One good thing has come out of this discussion, in my opinion, apart from the Photoshop vs. Reality debate, and that is Vuk's razor sharp and compellingly accurate description of the "globoculture" being, "...ultimately the collective-aesthetic of our latest herd of teenagers." I'll carry that one with me as a "life concept". That's a keeper Vuk. It's good to have you back.

Talking of "culture", perhaps Nour Eddine El Ghoumari's final joke on his predominantly Western audience here at Photo.Net is to have fooled many (and it prpobably would have fooled me too if I hadn't read his admission) into appreciating this picture as somehow representative or decisively illustrative of "Middle Eastern culture", when (as many have pointed out) it refers to two distinct cultures. Ah, the "Mysterious East", back alleys in the Moroccan Casbah, a cheerful denizen of same smoking himself to death on a cigarette made from cheap tobacco... while still smiling.

Moderator Note: Hey Tony - Edits.. I did my best... But when comments get political or start to go on about PN policy - as usual - I edit. Years ago our fearless leader used to delete the whole comment when things went off topic and I think that is not necessary. When I ask people to stay on the "image" - substite the word "montage" if it makes you feel more comfortable ;-) What we do not want here is an endless and pointless discussion of photo vs PS. This is the image that was chosen. If people are not happy with the choice - this is not the place to discuss it.. they are welcome to complain in the Help and Feedback forum.

. . . its cuz of guys like tony that i hang around here; i have not read a better-stated analysis in a long time. this, uh, photograph adds up to less than it suggests and seems somewhat sterile to me. it has some interesting angles, some cute foreground-background play, and for this westerner is in an unusual location. the tones and clarity are first-rate. but, with the very particular location, it suggests a meaning or story that is just not apparent to me (admittedly, this may be a cultural matter), and is not particularly revealing of the smiling "smoker" who is the title subject.

Put aside the technical fluency, and the weirdness of it, there's not much to this image to hold my interest and I don't understand the purpose of this exercise. The composition per se is awkward -- everything there looks superimposed and overwhelming with heavy walls competing with each other, distractingly; with strange perspectives and that necesserily kitschy patch of the sky as to make a point ... what's the point, I ask? Is the cigarette smoker a point? Is this an ad for Camels? I am lost. What's wrong with photographing life as is? Since when do we call Matrix reality a travel photography? It is a mistake to call it photography in the first place. Nour, I hope you won't take this personally, I know you won't, you're a very capable photographer.

you've got to love it though: a request for critiques of "travel photo" that is neither made on far-flung travels nor a photo; the strange new world of both the emerging digital medium and the worldwide internet make us all rethink assumptions and stereotypes at times, and, let's hope, be the better for it. Hats off to Nour and the elves for provoking the discussion, however inadvertantly.

Every creation of reality should also challenge it. Otherwise, it is escapism.

Every reality should be a challenging creation. Otherwise, escape!

Eugene, yes! Escapism: habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine Escapism, as in Hollywood & Disneyland. Since this image was made in Morocco, and since, it seems, it no longer matters where what was made, you're right on Vuk, globoculture of escapism defines this image perfectly.

Thanks Tony !!!

have been ruminating on that for the past twenty months, Maria.