Alone

"Jeremy, I won't try to answer for Marc, but, if you shine a bright light at the camera, the aperture will either close down automatically or have to be closed down to prevent overexposure, thus darkening the poorly lit portions. The effect might indeed be a silhouette, but for the reason Marc gave: the aperture has closed down. The mere juxtaposition of bright and dark portions is not in and of itself what gives that silhouette effect, contrary to popular opinion. Unless the aperture closes down, that is, the darker portion will still show some detail, at least as a general rule."

Right on.

Ooops... Sorry... The above quote was Lannie's explanation, not Isidro's... but well, the explanation is spot on.

While the first part of your post fits, I am uncomfortable with the end of it.

This is still perfectly valid, and was Carl Root's point: "With regard to the PoW, the bright light on the water surely would affect overall exposure, which one would expect would darken all the figures, not merely the solitary one that was darkened the most."

To be more precise, there isn't enough distance between the foreground dark silhouette and the other few folks on the lefts, to justify the enormous difference of brightness between them.

You also wrote: "It might well be that, due to sky or reflective conditions, the figures in the distance were subject to more front lighting than was the figure in the foreground."

Precisely, no. How could sand be this much more reflective than water ? And how could the water be very light grey and the sand darker, while the silhouette in the water would be darker than those people on the sand ? That's simply impossible. On top of that misty or foggy shooting conditions REDUCE contrast, rather than augmenting contrast. See the raw file and you'll see a realistic contrast. See the POW for an unrealistic contrast.

You wrote: "What I think happened is that the figure in the foreground thus came out somewhat darker because it was more backlit."

No ! That's exactly why I said earlier that the backlighting of a subject or a brighter background behind it would NEVER make a silhouette darker. Stepping down on the aperture would, but that would have an overall effect on the picture, and would not modify the natural contrast. Regards.

Thanks for noticing, Mark. I was only wildly speculating, and I was thinking more along the lines of bright spots on low clouds, which kind of lighting could theoretically brighten only part of the photo, but perhaps not all of it--but that seems extraordinarily unlikely, I concede, since such a bright spot would have to be on a cloud so low that it would be perhaps a hundred meters above the water, catch the light just right, illuminate the far figures but not the near figure, etc.

 

In other words, I was trying to imagine some wildly unlikely scenario whereby such uneven lighting could occur as to create a silhouette effect.

 

I actually believe that you are correct in all that you have said, and I appreciate your commentary, as always.

Marc, I was also assuming the possibility that the actual distance between the figures might be much greater due to telephoto effects, but I was grasping for straws as to how such uneven lighting MIGHT occur, such as by putting a bright light on one model in the distance but leaving a model in the foreground in ordinary or diminished light, which could create a silhouette effect.

 

I actually think in retrospect that the photo was manipulated using strong contrast, as Carl said, and as I think that you also affirmed, and so I would have to back off on saying that the near figure was probably backlit. It's conceivable, but so unlikely as to not warrant further speculation.

 

All of this speculation could be put to rest by seeing the original file, of course.

 

Thanks again.

Marc, one last point:

 

Although I noted it above, it seems that Miguel Angel has as much as admitted to using some kind of local darkening (not just a general increase in contrast) in another shot:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2992989

 

His own introductory commentary says as much on that picture.

 

In addition, in that shot it is quite clear that the effect is there in spite of the even more obvious lack of distance between the darkened figures and those that are not.

 

In other words, you're right, as you and Carl usually are.

Oops! Marc, I see that you were looking at that very same photo at 11:49, about a half hour ago.

No one has commented on my treatment of Miguel's ORIGINAL RAW file. You will note that, although the resolution isn't very good, you can still see that the middle group is darker, yet there appears to be some detail in the lone figure. More to the point, the gradations look natural.

 

It's also curious that no one has mentioned the rule of thumb for exposure compensation in fog: +1. Had the scene been exposed that way - maybe it was, but I doubt it - there would have been all kinds of detail in the lone figure and the idea of converting it to a silhouette would have been the furthest from his mind.

 

All conjecture, I know, but let's admit that many PS treatments are inspired as much by fixing a flaw as by artistic inspiration.

As far as the underexposure misconception in concerned, yes you can underexpose any individual part of a photo by -burning in- that particular area. Granted in a conventional darkroom one would apply more light to that specific part of the print, but that is only because the print is a negative of the actual scene (or to be more specific)...a print is -the negative projected image of a negative film- and as we all know, two negatives equal one positive. In either case, to block light from a print is to overexpose it and to add light to it is to underexpose it (keep in mind that we are talking about negative results here).

 

When you are -darkening- a photo on Photoshop via -burning- you are in essence underexposing the part of the area you are burning. The term is the same Lanny for both, in camera exposure, and post exposure, regardless of what medium was used...digital or chemical. If you think of it as AMOUNT OF LIGHT instead of burning of dodging, all you are doing is providing or blocking light to/from the picture. Just as you do at the moment of exposure, but obviously, when burning in we are bring selective on a particular area of the photo.

 

As a matter of fact, you could even -dodge and burn- a film (in the camera) at the moment of exposure, providing that the exposure is long enough to allow a dodging or burning tool to be moved back and forth in front of the lens so that is doesn't record a sharp edge on the film.

I know the above example is oversimplified and it seems that I'm holding your hand and walking you through the paces. I don't intend any ill will by it. I'm only trying to describe it in a way that others, who may not be familiar with the photographic process, can understand. The effects of underexposure or overexposure can vary with paper contrast and chemicals used, but we won't go there. The process is still the same.

Find me please. Seems to be a lost person. Wonderful picture B&W!!

I completely agree with Dhiren. To me this would not look so fake if the person's face wasn't rounded out by the post process of burning or whatever that was done. There are no detail of a face seen from the side. Plus the darkening should be reduced to show some details.

 

I'd say those are the things that take away about 90% of the potential emotional effect this shot can create. For my optical common sense at least. :)

I think it's great image. The originality of it is in the whole atmosphere, the lonely girl walking in the foreground andthe background set in fog. It gives the image the depth and the ideaof thinking further about it. That's something interesting in this image, something that perhaps cannot be measured only in terms of aestethics or originality.

To manipulation I would say only that it was well done and in time ofdigital photography it is not fake to adjust the image in order toimprove the aesthetics of it. If this hasn't been done maybe nobody would mess about this photo.

 

BTW, this is not a monochromatic (=black&white) image but rather tritoned. I write this only not to confuse the others.

 

P.S.: Happy New Year to everyone :)

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2992989-md.jpg

 

As I'd mentioned on your other image: Your POW image is good but because this one has such a better composition I'd rate it so much higher. My eye travels through the whole image and comes back around again to the center of interest due to the arrangement of the 'elements' (other people, that is, in this case).

The one with the girl has nothing bringing your eye back around, and since both have this exciting contrast and monochromatic light, and balance, I opt for this one. The additional diagonals in this one make it so much stronger also. It's a hands down winner in compositional strength over the POW.

 

Many blessings to all in the coming New Year

Thanks for the clarification on the fuller meanings of "underexposure" and "overexposure," Isidro. This becomes more than a problem of semantics when discussing a photo such as this.

Definitivamnete no quisiera ser el recipiente de este premio... Que mucho ignorante! Que mucho comentario esteril! Y para colmo el lio con el idioma...

 

Miguel Angel, la foto es buenisima. No me importa si has sacado cada pixel de un sitio diferente. Pienso que lo que importa es la expresion, la claridad grafica y la historia. Y lo tienes todo.

Siento mucho que hayas recibido el premio ;-)

 

To my fellow english speakers, I just told him that the pic was excellent and that I don't care for the POW 'cause it raises too much sterile and ignorant comments. To the person offended by our spanish, I am truly sorry, our mamas spoke spanish to us... Mine taught me that when someone speaks a foreign language in front of you is because you are not invited to the conversation.;D(I got a bad mama and this is not the case here) ;-)

Angel, although I thought that the discussion has been pretty good (at least in comparison with what often gets posted on other POWs), I agree with you about the offensive remarks concerning language.

 

As of this point in time, we still an active forum thread in which the issue of the use of other languages besides English is discussed. I hope that it will be archived and be part of what promises to be a continuing discussion about such matters:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AXX7

Hello to everybody and have a happy new year. I would like to contribute my opinion in the discussion, mostly because of the subject of digital manipulation that is being addressed.

 

Firstly, the image itself, to me it seems very good in general. The idea of it, as well the realization of. On the other hand, the aesthetics of putting a contrasting silhouette in front is not very appealing to me. Additionally, even if it succeeds doing the trick of catching the eye, it does not help in going to the emotional state of wondering about the loneliness of the lady walking on the beach. However, I really like the idea of the people going on a different way. In general, I am not very fond of the picture. But that has nothing to do with the discussion triggered.

 

As far, as digital manipulation is concerened, I have read from time to time many contradicting articles, and I would like to point out a few things. Some, for example say that a photographer should no digitally alter the picture and the picture should be left as is during shutter release. But, I am sure that only a few know, that proccesses like contrast adjancements or image enchancement, unsharp masking, blurring, and more where first discovered and performed in the dark room. But, then, nobody objected, thus manipulation of the image in the darkroom was acceptable. Why, should not we be accepting digital manipulation. Consequently, one doing art, is not supposed to be using a certain tool and making something beautifull out of it. Like a musician, using acustic guitar, and discovering electric guitar. Then, can't he make a masterpiece with an electric guitar. The answer is simple, yes he can.

Personnaly, I prefer, shutter release art, but that is what I like most, not what everybody should do. Apart from, that we should judge only on the resulting picture, not on the methods performed to achieve it.

 

Cheers,

Image makers (photographers, painters, printmakers, or what have you) should, in my opinion, do whatever the blinking blazes they want, and leave it to posterity to judge their work. Unless they need the money, in which case they should prostitute their work in exchange for cash.

Cheers.

Perhaps everyone has forgotten that the moment an image is consigned to silver or silicon, it has been "manipulated". First and foremost, the image is a crystallization in two dimensions of a very small part of a real three dimensional world. It has been extracted from its overall context, and abstracted into a visual metaphor or signifier of some intended meaning. Of all the great wet darkroom photos, how many are not manipulated in some manner? Or have we forgotten what AA meant by visualization... The vast majority of any sort of art photography prints, be they conventional or digital are not "straight" works, but enhanced or contrived in some manner. How many skies, reflections, luminosities, fogs, etcetera never appeared in the straight negative or RAW format?

 

I for one could care less the actual methodology Sr. Cuadrado used to arrive at his visualization here. I like it, for it is something both tangible and ephemeral, an artifact of one man's artistic vision. Others may not like it, or be neutral. That is their perogative, and what art is ultimately about. Comment on technique may help build the skills of others, but it amazes me to no end how the digital darkroom crew not only wishes to comment on technique, but to actually take an image someone else has created, and re-engineer that art themselves to their own vision and claim it to be "criticism."

 

I live in both photographic worlds. Mayhaps it is the dinosaur in me, but the idea of saying, "hey Alfred, Henri, Ansel, how bout giving me the negative you used for that print, and making it something I feel is a little more expressive?" ?Gracias por la gran fotografía, mi amigo!

It's all bout misery, isn't it? superrbbh!

The Gurus of Photograpy in pn have pronounced their verdict. The caption "ALONE", blends harmoniously with the image. We have come 'alone' in this world, and will have to depart 'alone'. Let's appreciate this image with its intrinsic beauty. Poets,philosophers, and photographers have glorified the theme "alone", from time immemorial, yet the theme has not become hackneyed or cliched.

I can't take my eyes off from this photo!

I'm pretty sure the photographer burned the girl a little which

is no big deal.

To me the photo makes me burn with the question, "what's the thing

that she's walking towards?"

She's so seperated but determined that she almost seem heroic,

taking the responsibility for the multitude (people in the background).

 

I'm amazed at this shot! GREAT image!

10/10 for the discussion! Where was I when this one happened? Where are you all on this week's discussion. Hellllllppppppp!

must be out prostituting your basdardize photography? kidding ?=)