Alone

The purpose of Miguel's attachment is to prove it's authenticity by showing the RAW image. I, for one, appreciate it. Hope we get to see a large original as well.

I begin my response by saying that I am new to photography. So what I say here does not come from any level of experience or authority. I can only state my honest opinion.

 

Prior to the advent of the digital image, as a photographer, we worked very hard at creating a "good" picture. But with film, there are only so many things that you can do with your final image. With the digital image, we still work very hard to create good pictures, but the images that we have created are not necessarily the end, but the begnining; a canvas for a potentially greater work-if we chose to use technology to further change or manipulate our images. Moving pictures are not that different; quite often than we even realize ("Castaway" being an immediate example) what you see in the end, is not even close to what you started out with.

 

From a creative stand point, I find nothing wrong with digital manipulation of an image for artistic expression. You can see it. The state of the so called "art" of digital will not change the fact that you know, as to reality, if there is no light, there will be no shadow. However, the state of the art is also at a point where there are very, very few "signature" works, meaning that you can look at a photo, print or digital, and without having the artist's name in front of you, generally know who it was that made the picture. To that end, the goal being (or at least my goal) to work towards one's own indivdiual, recognizable creative stamp.

 

With that in mind, I would hope that the photo of the week is used as a learning tool, and yes, with a group as talented and experienced as this one, there are "better" pictures-but it's not about better or worse, it's about learning from what we see. Remember, the only "accomplished" photographer is a dead one. So we keep shooting, we keep seeing, and from each other, we keep learning.

 

Contrary to many of the posters, I don't need to see the original image before looking at the end result. It's like asking to see the ground meat before you order the hamburger(smile).

 

I'm honored to be a member, and look forward to seeing many more great images that will be posted here in the future.

-Allenda

A ver ahora si sale :( , perdon por mi torpeza

First i want to state that i am relatively new to photography, but i want to state my opinion on this image.

I will not go into the fact if image is manuipulated of not, but when i see this image i totally agree with the title, i also like the way the author has positioned himself to position the alone lady almost 1/3 of the frame. Being a silhouette in my opinion it makes the photo workout well in this case since image is monochrome..ALSO silhouette is very contrasty compared to the other people at the background, which i think if it was not that dark it would reduce the overall impact of this shot.

Your eyes will settle on the subject which is a good asset afterall.

I find that it is an image that leaves the viewer wondering why/what see is thinking, why she went there, whts on her mind...Why all those people at the back...

 

 

OVERALL i love this image, very mysterious and great tought out composition, tone and well seen...THX FOR SHARING

I believe that the topic has remained clarified on the non-existent manipulation of this image once seen the file RAW.

 

I wanted to say to Bee Flowers: your commentary seems to me unfortunate, since Miguel A. de Arriba Cuadrado (if you prefer Michael Up Square,

my mother taught very good manners to me) clarifies that his English level is not sufficient for this explanation, and he requests, being grateful in advance, that is translated.

For my part I ask for excuses because my English is not good.

Thank you very much.

this picture recalls me the tragedy occourring just these hours in the indian ocean, it tells how much we are "alone" (altough being surrounded by many) and weak among strong and upredictable forces.

 

how would you read this image beyond its surface?

 

the silouhette of the girl in foreground is driving herself torward the shores... without fear, but with respect. is she willing to challenge the power of the shores? is her aware of the full power of that force?

 

the people in background are living their lives unaware (maybe) of the girl and her link to the sea, walking torward a completely different destination... are they aware too of the power of this element? are they willing to ignore the shores (and inerhently their power?) just becouse this give them a false sense of safety?

 

the shores are not directly seen, but who lives at sea in winter knows that a long wet beach means long powerful shores so.... even if the power of this element is not shown, can we deduct it is all there?

does the lack of visible sea power make this image less strong? does the image tells this force nevertheless?

I?m not sure what to make of this photo. Obviously all the controversial issues have been dealt with already. All that is left is to Yay or Nay it. So I?ll simply say that there is nothing unique about the photo but that it is not ordinary either (mostly due to the people in the background being so sporadic in position on the photo and direction of travel as well as activity of each individual.

 

We have, in the immediate foreground, the little girl, all by herself, walking into the water, and no one in the frame is doing the same. Next, we have the middle group of people who appear to be all families, yet not related in any way, because some are coming and some are going away from the photographer and seem to have passed each other nonchalantly. And last but not least, we have the many separate individual who are standing still or walking and running without any relation to each other either in category or intent.

I guess with all these players, going about their interesting endeavors, it may be better to include them as part of the picture (since they look quite interesting to begin with) and not dissect them to a less important role in the fading background.

 

On another note: any amateur can walk away with a photo like this (or even better) on his first day at the beach. That aside, there is a considerable amount of emphasis placed on the little girl by the increase in contrast. And I initially thought this was overly done and it killed the photo for me. But once I jumped that hurdle I can see that all other players in the photo are going about their business walking safely outside of the tide. This in turn separates the little girl from the rest of the crowd but in my (and apparently others?) opinion this separation is too abrupt to be palatable. I think a little more contrast on the rest of the photo should bring it to a more pleasant compromise.

I?ll see if I can insert a quick example just for comparison.

Regardless of whether this is a photo, or a non-photo, I think it's a pretty good picture. Photography is not the same as it was 20 years ago, and it continues to change. Rather than clinging to outdated and doomed concepts, we have to redefine photography into other terms. Whether a picture is straight from a silver-based negative, or has been enhanced with digital methodology is becoming more and more irrelevant. Even in the past, if a photo had been subjected to chemical alterations, such as toning, we still considered it a "photo"graph, when in actuality it was only photo based, having become a chemograph.

Something that I had not previously noticed is the way that the little girl seems rather absently to be moving toward the ocean, while the ocean appears almost in personified form to be approaching her, as if to approach her in order to comfort her. I say this on the basis of the next wave that is barely visible, coming in from the right side, over the water from the last wave as it recedes.

 

There is actually quite a bit of artistic merit to this work, and it is more interesting the longer I look at it. It also admits of varying types of potential manipulation, and I am not sure what I would have done in post-processing. I think that the photo as offered is quite excellent, and the juxtaposition of the little girl meeting the sea counterpoised against the rather random movements of the shadowy persons in the background makes it even more enigmatic.

 

There is a lot here for the imagination to work with.

 

One translation note: One reason that I did not translate "subexposicion" as "underexposure" is that I think of underexposure as occurring during the capture phase, not during the post processing phase, the phase to which Miguel Angel clearly refers. I might also have better rendered "cuestiones" as "issues" rather than "questions." Translation is an art, and I am no artist.

 

Miguel, now please offer us the actual original image resized to 511 horizontal pixels, if you will. Let us see what alternative treatments might be suggested as persons offer their own interpretations in post-processing. That tradition on PN has given us some interesting critiques on other photos, and I think that it would be interesting to see what other persons would do with the original file.

I love it. Very Henri Cartier-Bresson.

As I saw this POW at first, I immediately knew the contrast had been heavily increased at post-processing stage. Looking at the raw file... What Carl said and what I first felt seems to be confirmed.

 

I have certainly seen many incredible lighting situations in my 4 years traveling in Asia all year long, but as Carl says, this exact lighting is very unlikely to ever exist anywhere.

 

In agreement with Michael Spinak, there are many amazing, incredible, lighting situations out there in the real world, but this POW, although very well composed and interesting, is still very unnatural. Carl Root explained why in a very clear manner.

 

An over-manipulated POW in my opinion, not because I hate manipulations - I don't -, but because a photograph showing a real scene should still, imo, show it in a way that would still feel real, or at least possible. Regards.

Does it feel real? That is the acid test.

 

What I think happened here is that the photographer felt the need to isolate his subject in a way that no one would miss and was willing to sacrifice optical realities to do it. He is probably right in assuming that many viewers would have seen it merely as a record shot and missed the symbolic potential entirely. It is our job as a site to show and discuss images that allow for many layers of interpretation without resorting to obvious heavy handed techniques.

 

Photo collages are another matter entirely. There is nothing confusing about them. There obviously is here.

I too wish that the girl were alone on her walk. But, to me, this is what makes this picture so facinating. It makes the viewer long for something more emotionally, if that makes any sense. This photograph is excellent!

Freaky. Love it.

"Does it feel real?"

 

To me, yes, it does. Or real enough, at any rate. Granted, it's not everyday lighting, but it doesn't look so far out of the ordinary that I will quickly accuse the photographer of bastardizing the original image. Sunlight shining through layers of fog can achieve this same effect. Two images accompany this comment to support my position. Only contrast was adjusted to render the closest elements darker than they appeared in real life.

 

With fog, the right play of sun, and only a little darkroom work, I don't have a problem with this picture, even if it turns out to be completely fabricated. You guys need to get out more.

 

Did the photographer help the silhouette? Maybe, but some of us do the same with concious underexposure of film and then heavy printing to drop shadow details that don't support our vision. What's the difference?

Conceptually a good idea Miguel. Perhaps what's needed is a stronger

commitment to the concept , taking it one step further? For me the shadow

and water trails are more interesting than the static figure.

 

I think this image illustrates how difficult it is to achieve a working ballance

between the idea and its elemets . I'd be interested to know whether the idea

was present at the time of shooting or if the idea came upon looking at the

exposed image. Did Miguel recognize what he had at the time or did he

impose the idea afterwards. I suspect the latter which would account for the

muddy impression.

 

Sally

 

Cheers Sally

"Incidentally, many of the people in the background are not silhouettes, but rather show a lot of detail. Isn't that strange?"

 

Above being said by the elves, what I actually find strange is to keep comparing apples with oranges when comes to dealing with traditional film photography versus digital images + post processing.

this picture is a beautifull work of art but I cannot give the artist the appreciation he deserves because we are stuck in this energy-draining discussion forum where we are all considered alike.

 

Why don't the elves make a distinction and introduce separate sections for say "traditional photography" and "digital art" (this is just a suggestion in absence of better terms) thus avoiding futile discussions.

If each side would have their own area people could actually focus on quality rather than what system is better.

Frankly I do not understand all this debate about digital manipulation. This effect could have been done also with a negative and an enlarger, chosing the appropriate paper (or filter) contrast and with some careful burning of the silhouette (just draw the girl on cardboard with the enlarger turned on, then cut it out). How it is done, ps or darkroom, is not so important, as long as the photographer is able to accomplish his vision.

 

Probably I prefer the raw version, giving a more realistic sense of light, than this burned one. Or probably something in between could have been better... or, let's suppose that the photographer knew what he was doing and we have to stick with what he gave us.

 

Sometimes I find some of these discussions a little bit surreal, how many people would have said to some renaissance painter something like "put more red here, some blue there, too much contrast"... hey, cool down... it's his picture, not yours.

 

I think that Miguel gave us a really good picture... and also different from the rest... I bet that most of us wouldn't have even shot it if they were on the same scene, not thinking about the final rendition. He did.

 

It's not strictly my genre, but I think this one here is damn good.

I also want to add:

 

I do not recall having seen a similar picture before... but the feelings this picture awakes, are very familiar. Miguel presented us feeling we all know in a new way.

 

Now, isn't this originality?

Doug, your two uploads show a progression . . . a rate of change in contrast that is fairly constant moving from foreground to backgound. You can accentuate it using any technique you like, but I suspect you were using methods that affected the whole image, not an isolated subject. I also suspect that the effect in Miguel's image was achieved adjusting the black point in 'levels' far more than gamma. I'm not concerned with the label we put on the results, only that it looks unnatural to me.

 

I have a great shot of construction equipment shot in heavy fog, but it's in color so you probably wouldn't be interested. :-)

Excelente foto

It is a photo extraordinary. My main prominence goes for the creativity of Miguel using dark and gray tonalities obtained to create an environment where the title of the photo could not be another one: "Alone". Congratulations.

Carl, I think Miguel's image would show a similar progression if the main subject were closer to the secondary subjects. My point is that the scene is not unnatural. Strange, maybe, but not unnatural. I agree that there is some after-camera manipulation, but I don't think it has ruined the picture.

?Sometimes I find some of these discussions a little bit surreal, how many people would have said to some renaissance painter something like "put more red here, some blue there, too much contrast"... hey, cool down... it's his picture, not yours.?

 

I never thought I?d argue against a statement like ?it?s his picture, not yours.? But the day has come. First off, I want to say that have no bone to pick with you Bruno, I?m only going to use your argument to augment mine and re-inspect the automatic consensus that what an artist does with his work should be sacred (or not go over the border) respected and left alone, e.g. taken at face value, etc. I?ll state that my argument has, by preconception, the premise that it is valid only on a case by case scenario and that I don?t intend for it to encompass every single creation by every possible artist in all known genres.

 

There comes the time when we must ask ourselves, ?Is this exactly what the artist intended?? let?s suppose (for the sake of the argument) that the end result is exactly what he/she envisioned. So what? Have we as viewers not the right or capacity to question its artistic value? Have we not the right to discuss amongst ourselves what are its merits, or the lack thereof? Do we not have the right to assemble with those whom we choose and discuss its strengths and weaknesses? Do we not have the right to suggest ideas that could improve the artist?s work, or to point out its flaws, or to suggest a different technique or approach, or to drool over it to our heart?s content, or to pooh-pooh it until kingdom come, or to??

 

 

Do we, who know each other?and can only communicate with each other over the internet?not have the right to discuss our opinions over the internet? If not, what the heck am I, and you, and all of us, doing here?

 

The idea is to discuss the photo and nothing else, but discussing the photo implies all aspects of it, be it positive or negative. Just as bad as someone who always praises all photos is someone who always finds fault in them, but which one is more justified in his approach? The truth is that both are, because art is subjective, but art should also be circumspective.

 

As such, both types of critiques will not yield the same results. One will make false winners out of everybody and the other can make real masters out of nobodies.

 

I know this is going long and I apologize, but if all we can say about a photograph is that is it good or that it is bad, then there is no need for the POW forum. Why don?t they just allow us to rate the photo thumbs up or thumbs down and get it over with?

 

Once again Bruno this is not about you. Others have already made, and will continue to make this same argument long after I die and others will, likewise as yours truly, refute it and the general public will continue to grow weary of both sides.

If the sun was overhead the fog would refract the light, illuminate the background and cause the foreground to be a silhouette?or he could have faked it all in photo shop. It?s a conversation piece. I like it.