"Backlit Autumn leaves in Clearing Morning Mist" VIEW LARGE PLZ

Apologies to Zafar, but these heavily manipulated images often end in debate.

Jayme,I suppose I should start with your last comment first,

So interesting, how if you want to, you can misconstrue almost any comment.

That is exactly what you have spent the last couple of hundred words doing, I merely took your comment, actually cut your comment and inserted it into my post. I really dont understand how Ive misconstrued it. Any inference or interpretation has been created by you.

Please take the time to read it again and you will see that your accusations are baseless.
BTW the condescending tone is not very becoming.

Brett it is perfectly fine with me. Please feel at home and discuss anything and as long as you may. I can imagine the discussion has just started all over again. If I may say so, I will highly appreciate, as I mentioned earlier, politeness and respect in the comments of the participants as I hope you understand we are not the only ones here...... lol ^_^

Fantastic work.. such a great shot! Really impressive.. even the frame works perfectly! Youre a great photographer! Keep up the good work!

 

Cheers

 

Patrick J

Truly the beauty of an image, thought or action is in presentation and intention. When simple confrontation is exercised it is obvious to most everybody and is usually not appreciated. If the true intention is one of discussion and growth of the individuals invloved, there is joy amongst the unison of those individuals. When people simply want to drive home their point and continue to do so with deaf ears and harsh judgments then their wisdom becomes lost in the waging of the war, whether that war is mental or physical, it is still a war. Some would argue it would be debate although the premise of debates is to express ones point of view in a civil manner not to slug back and forth without refining their points of view. I find it curious that such a beautiufl piece of art (or imagery) can create such intensity bordering on fervor between artists. Perhaps we are defining something else? I beleive that one of arts missions is to create create emotion...Congratulations!

Well lots of heat here Zafar, your image is something else..it is beautiful.It is manipulated...or transformed..or worked on or..etc you , yourself saying that, so why all these arguements about it? The word manipulated itself is used based on the artist's point of view, I think serious digital photographers do not considers photoshop or some other image editing work a manipulation , I think , a RAW file is there for us to express what we saw or what we would like to see, from that file, ...here you have done and excellent work editing that file.It really looks good, I am sure someone else who is skilled can say otherwise, but let me tell you this ,to me you have done very well, you came out and showed us more in this particular image than the previous one...so let us put all the fire out and take this 6/6.

Brett- It seems to me you took a small portion of my very large statement and placed it out of context in your statement, using it as your reasoning behind why you put more weight on photographic skills, thus making you a member of the John & Paul camp. I both read & comprehend very well. If this was not what you meant, then you may want to clarify your comment.

 

My statement "So interesting, how if you want to, you can misconstrue almost any comment." was meant to imply that when one chooses to take a statement out of it's true & entire context, it may be both misconstued and misunderstood from it's original intended meaning. The "You" was not meant to be you personally.

 

As far as your statement, "BTW the condescending tone is not very becoming." Obviously you misunderstood my last statement and took it as directed at "you" personally. If I'm guilty of anything it's of choosing the wrong pronouns. If I had truly wanted to be condescending in my tone, I guaranty, one would have little trouble discerning it. I don't know you well enough to be either condescending or arrogant. Someday, maybe, but not today.

 

So beautiful. Congratulation for an excellent work.

It is a nice artistic rendering. So good job for this version. Yet, for the purpose of critique, I'm not keen on the sun rays with such hardness and defintion. I would like to see a softer version. The composition is trying to carry the sense of softness. The hard edges don't carry that theme.

 

I thought the whole purpose is to critique the image and give the developer some food for thought to raise the bar. So, if you are inclined to make another version I would soften it. Change some of the shadows as previous mentioned by others and lets see if we like it as much as this version. We can all learn.

 

Personal comment to the team of interested. Photography (camera, lens, filters, lighting, etc.), Artistry, Dark Room and Photoshop Techniques (lenses, filters, lighting, etc.) are just tools to create an compelling and captivating image. If you choose to only use limited tools, then you must be satisfied with limited results. I say what ever it takes to interest the viewer. Regards - Scott

Thank you Scott for you sharing your thoughts. I highly appreciate you input is this discussion.

 

Jayme I can not agree with you more on the fact that no matter how expert you are in PS you can not make an ordinary picture into a classic. Photography first and then PS. Cameras excel in capturing the detail in low light and this ability is even better than the human eye. I am sure all of us have experienced pictures taken from cameras mounted on tripods with shutter speed of say 15 or 30 minutes. You can capture detail that is not visible to human eye even. Situation is quite opposite when we talk about very bright light and an extremely contrasty scene. I am also sure that you know cameras fail to give details in highlights or shadows at the same time when shot directly into the sun and one is bound to have over and under exposure of one of them. The eye on the other sees much detail as it already has this tremendous capacity to accomodate sometimes even seven focal stops exposure lattitude. It will give you detail in both the highlight and the shadows and makes you enjoy the beauty.

To add a little spice to the discussion I am posting the 2 exposure/images I used to make this. To share my experience. Here is how I did it. These are two pictures of the same place. If you look at them they both look complete in their own sense and if I may say so may appear more beautiful than the one I have posted. But my idea was totally different from it. The image with the sun has lost most of the detail because of almost four stop exposure difference that it failed to give detail in the midtones and shadows. However the sun and the fog have been excellently captured. The other option would have been to get detail in the shadows and the midtones completely blowing out the highlights which is extremely difficult to correct even in PS. This why I chose the first option. To compensate the detail I took the second shot in which the sun has moved away say 15 degrees and is no more in the frame and as the angle is still the same the shadows of the tree and the branches still correlate with the position of the sun.

 

These pictures are 1/2 to 3/4 of an hour apart. As this will be the time taken for the sun in the morning to travel out of the frame and the fog to clear out. Shoot the sun with sunburst filter and capture the glowing fog, the rest of the frame is bound to underexpose as we are shooting directly into the sun and the glowing fog because of direct sunlight will obscure the detail in the frame. Do the other shot without the sun after 3/4 hours when mist has totally cleared up. Normally the mist is only tree top high in Islamabad where I shot this and fades away even going till the tree top. Its simple as it will be the same time which you will take to compose and shoot other trees. When you are finished. Come back to the first and take the second shot series. I use small markers just like golf to mark the position of first shot as it tremendously reduces the stitching and layer blending time.... It might sound a little difficult but extremely easy to execute if you get the hang of it.

 

Let me know if guys need any other information.

Just great.

...I think I'm scared of ty p . . i . . n . . g . . now. Dang, I like them either way. Just different mood. Don't want nothing to do with the debate above. All I can say is, I know a good one when I see one. ^_^

Tell me Zafar...is it more work to explain and justify the image than it was to create it?

Thanks Wilson that you dard to enter this discussion and managed to type something with your trembling hands.... lol ^_^ I appreciate.

 

 

Thanks Jos for your re-visit to see what is new.

 

 

How true you are. It took me three minutes, 1 1/2 each to photograph both the pictures. Half an hour PS work and six days of explanation of what the image is all about. Well this is how it goes. You try something new you pay for it too. To be honest I really enjoyed this in the past few days on both of my pictures. Its a fun rather a botheration. It is nice see a live interaction between PN members. Thanks for joioning in again.

Wow Wow,What a debate is going on here... Wilson, my hands are not yet trembling.... so I will type my point of view as well. I agree with you though Wilson, that I know a good work when I see one!!

 

Despite the legend about the frog changing to be a princess, reality is a small bit..different, and you have to start with some " flesh" of a photograph in order to manipulate it later on.

 

Let me remind you that when the first camera was invented, painters well known( Edgar Degas as one example) used it to explore phenomenon that were hard for the human eye to discern( like the horse legs, how they work while running).

I see PS as a relative new way of exploring a photo ,correct, crop unneeded parts, improve a saying, or aesthetic components, and combine 1, 2 frames by manipulation, in order to create from them something imaginative.I will call it creativity. What Zafar did was BASED on photograohy, that he explored and did a frame that has imagination and creativity.

There will always be the pro and against, as there are till now, many, that think that digital is not as good as film camera, and innovations were always a point of controversy...Untill they became common use...

Thanks Zafar for showing and explaining the 2 images and how you arrived at 1. I totally agree about the camera not being able to capture what the human eye sees especially when looking into the sun. You have accomplished, by taking the 2 images at different times and then combining them, what the human eye and brain does naturally. With a wonderful result.

 

It's so enjoyable and illuminating to converse with others who are both intelligent and thoughtful. Thank you!

"It's so enjoyable and illuminating to converse with others who are both intelligent and thoughtful."

 

Let me offer that sentence to you! Pnina

Great resault. Beautiful work. Thanks for posting it here.

A lot of people have made a lot of very valid points on this image. Zafar made an interesting statement about this was an experiment with fog in ps...sliced bread? In 1984 3d studio would allow for at distances and varying intenstities, levels..almost any scenerio you could imagine. Now they have progs that make it look like a kids toy...a lot of what ps is like. Ps is more a tool for the masses than anything to create serious art from.

 

But its here..and my critque up there seems harsh but its true. I am not anti graphic at all. Done autocad, 3ds, animations blah blah. Its a blast to do...BUT this image is not sliced bread. As graphic art goes its more like paint by number. Don't take that as negetive please..but the visible brush stokes etc.

 

So my entire point i guess is are we doing photography anymore or are we gonna sit at pc's painting with brushes? Does logic as far as realistic lighting enter into the picture?..Because someone paints an image with ps tools does not make it good. Thousands of photos look better than this but you all seem to think its the Mona Lisa of image art...and its amazing the skill here really being his first or second attempt. It looks really good, not saying it doesn't. But the ps work done here is very primitive, that was the message.

 

An image like this could be created through shear use of a camera and lighting adjustments and look even better..maybe not on first glance but on extended viewing. My view is if a blur tool has to be run over a photo to improve it, theres something very wrong with it. Anybody can make some mystical image with that tool...try it some night.

 

To me the above crosses the line between photography and painting. It is photo based so its allowed. Photo based is a rather non meaning description of allowable photos though...if it contained just 1 pixel of photo it would be photo based..so its a catch 22.

 

This photo i'm posting is made with 3d studio 4 in the 80's. Any object in it is a 2d line spun into a 3d object adding vectors..not a single piece of photography here. The lighting is all ambient and spot. I defy anybody here on pn to provide a reason that could prove its not a photograph....the only real point i have for doing this is because the things i mentioned in the above image can be seen by any viewer without even zooming the thing. This pic save it, zoom it...u still can't tell till you zoom to max..thats the benchmark of good "ps" work. Its not the morality of doing ps as art as some seem to think i'm anti camp on. Image art is beautiful when it conveys creativity or can be just plain beautiful. There is one way to see this 4ds image isn't a photo imo...its dead...has no soul.

 

and one more if i may...this looks a lot like the average digital pic...bit better than some. Every plant seen is fractal generated....so trade the cams in on 3ds max and never have to leave the house again and actually take a photo?

I have looked at the image you have posted, it is very aestheticaly done, BUT, you are right, it is frozen, has no soul, and that is my point, PS is only a tool. For creating you need what is in the middle of your eyes... as well as your eyes, and your imaginative eyes.

Again when the camera was invented, many painters said that "painting is dead" as the camera can see better... well nowadays it is proved wrong, and painting has taken many more ways, using photography thechnology and painting combined . That is what happening to photography + PS, it is using the new tools our developed era suggest. Can you imagine a generation or so, that we both will be conversing and changing ideas, or debating on the spot?... the world is developing all the time and we are trying at least, to exploit what it offers us.

Some interesting points regarding the digitial camera/manipulation debate are made by David Hockney in this article.

Valid points on both sides. Well done Zafar for creating a stir (I'm sure it won't be the last).

Thanks for that article that confirmed what I have written ( I promise you I did not change any idea's with D. Hockney..)I completely don't think photography is dead, it will take more forms of expression.The horses can not be stoped... The last word will still be the quality, the ability of expression, the feeling and emotion, the message. That, no camera with or without PS can achieve, only the creative person behind them.

Thanks Pnina-

 

I don't know Paul, you put yourself out a pretty big limb here. I agree, P/S is a tool, but one can't create serious art with the use of P/S? I think maybe you just shot yourself in the foot with that addition. That's what accomplished painters said about photographers & their cameras.

 

And yes, the 3D images you posted are "dead", and "soulless". The point? I bet there's some really super graphic artist out there that could beath life back into those images. So what?

 

Time to wake up and smell the coffee, digital is here to stay and no one knows exactly where it will take us! Maybe the "masses" will be come more right-brained, let's hope.

Thats very insightful thanks and may i point out that this discussion is becoming almost a forum for the argument but a lot of it is misconstrued also.

 

I tore the image apart yes..but not because i'm politicialy opposed to manipulation or a staunch purist.. i basically just said the ps work on the thing sucked. People right away get defensive and take that as an anti ps campain and its not.

 

Somebody after made the comment...nice ps work. Will he come back...or will anybody speak up and state whats GOOD about the work to counter my statements on it? Its easy to say good or bad but another to define it.

 

Nobody seems to want to argue that, yet i made to feel like i am breaking hearts saying it...its objective. Its a picture that in a few days will go to a folder, to realitive obscurity. And the whole deal is not even about THIS pic per se...its about replacing beautiful photographs with shoddy ps work. Or trying to make beauty ones even more beauty. Some people have created an "air" surrounding these images that their beyond reproach and any image on pn is open for negetive views, including my own. They have stated in comments out loud that you are not allowed to critisize....the laws of pn don't apply here??

 

You recall the last image..heres its title.. "The party is on.....Please feel free to join the discussion on photoshop manipulations"... ok i join and give my opinion. Oh no the post start flyin on the forum, my personality is attacked from 50 different people...cause i held a negetive view similar to this. Does that constitute some disscussion?

 

I feel all this is nothing more than some media blitz designed to create controvery. His friend is on the forum whining that he hasn't slept in 2 days cause someone..me..has said "bad words" about this image...its not even his pic!!!! ghesh.

 

Ok...i don't wanna upset anyone to that degree. This is the best pic i have ever seen. Its fabulous. Fantastic...7/7 x 100...ok go to sleep now.

well, i don't mean any harm 2 anyone here nor trying 2 defend this shot against any other autumn shot. but i agree with Jayme & i appreciate paul's observations. i just watched paul's autumn shots that he uploaded in comparison. i acknowlegde its paul's best effort on autumn so far & must b viewed with respect. he's really worked hard & ended with good work. but the difference of ratings shows that this particular shot by rabbani has the magnatic power 2 pull the eyes right into its soul. all other work on autumn is also great, esp some shots posted earlier by yuri bonder were stunning indeed. so, all in all, digital or non digital...the autumn work's been stunning this year. & of course, digital's here 2 stay. but if we put off that bais agaist digital or any other form of cameras & just consider it all a process of change. auotfocus replaced manual & now digital replaced non digital & in Jayme's words, no one knows where's it gonna take us". its all evolution. when u have control over things, better control...then why not use it 2 enhace aesthetic quality of your work. its the aesthetic quality of this wrk that ppl r rating by 7's or 6's. & as long as it pleases the eye, ppl'll rate it or any other work in that way. regards!