untitled

i dont even think its that wonderful of art. the digital repetition of the boats definitely doesnt help. i find it hard to get that so called "tranquil" feeling looking at this. not only does it not look like any place ive been, im pretty sure i wouldnt want to. sure its well done, but does that make it GOOD ?

For the past several months that I have been reviewing "photos" on this site, I have been trying to figure out what makes a good picture. I have been photographing for close to fifty years now and have grown up with such greats as Adams, Weston, White, Cartier-Bresson, etc.,etc.... I have, like most, abadoned my wet darkroom in favor of photoshop and now shoot just about everthing digital. I used to manipulate photos in the the wet darkroom to look impressionistic, because I love the look and feel of that art. If one visualizes a scene in a certain way, he should be able to use any tool to make that visualization come alive. Using computer tools is now an adjunct to making great pictures. Photography has and will continue change. It allows freedom of expression and fulfillment of creativity. Tamtam tamtam's picture is a stunning one and if I passed it in an Art gallery, I probably would stop and say how lovely it was.

Something in front of the 3rd boat from the left goes nowhere. One row of boats, problems everywhere. Good idea, bad implementation.

I don't know how much the image was manipulated, but to me, the more manipulation had to be done, the more it shows how much emotion was there in the creator of the image in order to arrive to the final result - this picture.

 

I am personally thrilled with the output - makes me very moody and nostalgic, and maybe a bit hopeful that life will become better soon. My compliments to the author.

I am not so sure if I agree with this assertion. My objection to the image is more aesthetic...I just didn't think it was very interesting, regardless of whether it was manipulated or not. As I am sure you are well aware, virtually all of what people do with Photo Shop these days has been done before, in the darkroom, and much of that done before the turn of the last century. In my own humble opinion, I am not sure whether there is any fundamental difference between the kinds of manipulations done by Oscar Rejlander in the middle nineteenth century, Jerry Uelsmann over the last couple of decades, and the kinds of manipulations you see on PN and other sites done with Photo Shop. Photo Shop certainly allows for some pretty sophisticated editing and manipulation that are far more difficult than when done in the darkroom. In any event, I notice that many of the most highly rated images on PN are indeed manipulated. I almost believe that the stigms to which you refer is almost reversed...if anything, there is a prejudice against straight, film-based photography, and a bias towards digital photography.

OK moderators I'll try to discuss the aesthetics, the impact of the resulting image.

 

What sets photography apart from other types of art.

 

IMHO in part it's the subconcious assumption that what you see is/was real and this is what's an integral part of the aesthetics and the impact of photographic images.

 

That's where this picture take the hit in the aesthetics and impact department.

 

In a nutshell: I'm intersted in the beauty of the real world, not how well graphic artists can translate their wet dreams into a images.

 

 

I know that oponions differ, there are those who don't care if something is fake as long as it looks/feels good and this is a universal phenomenon from politics to porn (and everything inbetween). And there are those who don't want to be bull$itted just for the sake of a cheap thrill.

 

What I think is really intersting that in the last years the basic assumption in the viewers has changed radically: A couple of years ago most people simply believed that what one sees in a photograph has a more or less close relationship to reality. Nowadays a significant number/fraction of viewers are ready to suspect that something is manipulated.

 

 

It'll be really exciting to watch the development of new artistic ways of expression that use the connection of photography to reality as an asset (in contrary to manipulated photographs that fight with reality).

 

The big question for me is: How can I make a photgraph that IS real and LOOKS real and nobody doubts it.

 

I think the digital revolution may actually foster such a development, because now there is a real need for it.

let's suppose it were a painting, just to cut out the Photo/manipulation issue. If it were, I have seen many alike in many sittingrooms aroud the globe. I don't find it special. Rather boring I would say. no offence taken, Tam. Just nothing new.

On the image, its very nice to look at, to a lay person it would initially look amazing, but non photoshoppers would also eventually pick it as cloned, thus rendering it non-effective(my mum did). This makes aesthetics redundant surely.

No defense of manipulation can rescue this image from its own failings. From both a technical and aesthetic point it doesn't deliver what it promises.

 

In my opinion an image needs to be more than "pretty at first glance". However, given the large amount of gushing praise, that clearly isn't the case for some people.

Bernard Mayr said:

"In a nutshell: I'm interested in the beauty of the real world, not how well graphic artists can translate their wet dreams into a images."

I agree, but I'm not a huge fan of photographs that are very selective and/or present an idealised view of reality either (recent examples being the people who wanted to remove the bottle from the Moroccan communal bakery photograph [the only distinctive thing in the photograph for me] and the waterfalls photograph where the flowing water had been blurred to the point where it didn't resemble flowing water anymore]). I watched a television programme about the Taj Mahal last night, but I struggled to find a good image of the Taj Mahal that WASN'T taken from the usual viewpoint (a viewpoint which only reveals part of the architecture) on the internet afterwards: why are the aesthetic preferences of most photographers so narrow?

As for the aesthetics and impact of the final image. I hate it! It has nothing to do with photography versus art (to me, images are images with typical photographs being at one end of an indiscrete scale and paintings etc. being at the other); I just think it discards the best aspects of photography (like precision) and painting (like texture and handling) and presents us with a pile of indistinct mush. No offence to tamtam, but I think the people who do this are photographers who want to be painters, but can't actually paint (I can't paint, so I know how it feels).

I wish tamtamtamtam had used a different set of boatsboats for the cloned part, or at least had changed some colorcolor values, or something, to make the effecteffect more realistic..

I have found dreamier, more surreal seascapes from the cockpit of my sea kayak. This comes nowhere close to the magic of the real ocean (nor even large ponds) where it is often not clear where the water stops and the sky begins. That is magic. This is not for me.

 

I am not against manipulation, but the result should be something that transcends the ordinary. The "ordinary" sea is often more spectacular and captures my imagination more than this does.

 

The idea was good in conception, but fails at the level of execution, as others have said. That said, it will get many raves and rants for all of the wrong reasons, I am afraid.

 

Reality can be, and often is, more magical and dreamlike than this. The ocean and the sky are too wonderful. They can perhaps even be enhanced digitally to be even more wonderful. That has not happened here.

 

I'm sorry to be so negative, since there are some ideas here which can come to fruition in some truly worthy work. Even so, congratulations on a worthy effort, and on getting PoW. I still think that you can do much better with such great raw materials.

I, for one, cannot look at this photograph without its obvious artificiality -- not merely the smoothing and other effects, but also the rubber-stamp copying of the boats -- smacking me in the face. It completely undermines any sense of place or mood that such an image might convey. It's like seeing the boom mike dip down into the scene in a movie.

If I am seeing right, this is a back-lit situation. Then, I don't expect the boats and their shadows to be so bright and full of details. I assume if this was taken into consideration at time of manipulation, the images would look more natural and more effective. However, it is beautiful. Good job.

The silvery white water is not unlike the color of water I saw in a dream last night.

 

I like it for that reason.

Well, the rule of thirds has been adhered to.... (image, canvass size), and I'm quite partial to a black border... and well, that's all I have to say.

As stated earlier, this is a poorly and unoriginally manipulated image that suffers from deeper observation.

Moderator #2 Comment: I am now the second moderator to ask members to stick to the image and not the "issue" of the POW selection or whether manipulation is valid or acceptable in photography. I've just deleted 29 comments and many of them were rude and inflammatory or chat-room type dialog. Please address issues of PS vs photos and PN policy of allowing manipulated images on this site or as a POW to the appropriate forum. That would be the Feedback forum.

My normal practice is to write to a member that has a comment deleted but when there are this many I do a bulk delete.

There are all types of photographers on this site. Some are into digital manipulation. They can have their day on the POW forum too. Feel free to discuss the quality or lack of quality of the manipulation resulting in this final image but not about whether a manipulated photo is valid as POW or that being manipulated it automatically does not consitute a photograph.

First, I'd like to congratulate A.O. (aka Tamtam) for his POW. Although this particular image is not one of my favorite works among his other creations, it seems to have been extremely well-recieved by other netizens of the PN.

 

As an average PS user, I would admit that creation of such pictures is rather routine. (I do not agree with the stated claims that this image and simialr image require mastery of PS.) There are many other PS images on this site that require significantly more skill, and time.

Yet, it is not its complexity that makes a picture great. I can show dozens of other PS images more complex, yet, emotionally quite foreign to me than this particular one.

 

IMHO, its simplicity is the strongest and the weakest points of the image. Simple images are easy to consume, and they are open to myriad of interpretations, we, the consumers, love them. At the same time, simple images are easy to copy. I would hate to see artists, like A.O., to indulge himself by cannibalising his own ideas. I like the basic idea of the picture. I appreciate it, and I would like to see more such images.

 

It is often a lot more difficult to create simple, powerful images than confusing, busy, complex pictures. The artist is one who can see distill simple out of complex, and still retain its essence.

What a lovely shot !!! as with most comments, very serene and peacefull, makes you wish you were there,only thing I might add is a little bigger on the "Sun" maybe 2/3 rds more...

Congrats Tam Tam on the POW..but I like others do not find this image palpable.I just don't see the point in producing an image with clone work that is very distracting and makes me wonder what kind of hidden meaning we are supposed to be missing here?There are no elements of Surrealism by which we may overlook redundancy or enough traces of overall fantasy to suggest that it may be ok for identical duplication of subject matter.As the moderator said,'stick to the real issue'so for me the boats just ain't workin enough to pull it off.

I left a brief comment on this image before it was chosen as POW, and would like to expand on my thoughts now. Why? Because it's here!

 

I do a lot of photo-manipulation for my day job. The one rule I always

follow is that the process must remain invisible or it will only serve to distract the viewer from enjoying the image. In this image the process is front and center.

 

In certain situations believability is not an issue, such as the work of Pavel Kaplun and Lasse Hoile, who's works represent fantasy more than reality. In these types of images the look of manipulation is fitting. However, an image such as this POW is meant to present a believable scenario. The obvious duplication of boats destroys any believability. If repeating elements do not add to the image they must be avoided at all costs. This image had potential, but it fails in execution.

At first glance, it is attractive, but the flaws are so obvious as to stall any attempt at meaningful interpretation. Unless, of course, the flaws (obvious cloning, blur filter, etc.) are meant to be so and are a statement in and of themselves. My guess is that they are not.

I have nothing against flights of fancy. They're just as valid a use of photography as anything else. In looking at a fanciful, manipulated image, however, one should probably not be distracted by the manipulation itself. Here, to my eye, the repeated boats are a serious distraction, in one step costing the image much of the effect it might have had if a viewer only looked for the 10th of a second necessary to get hold of its ethereal mood.

 

Is it terrible in concept? No, not really. It doesn't pretend to be a foggy sea scene as effectively as it pretends to be boats floating in clouds, and that won't work for every viewer. Most fantasy is like that.

 

In the end, and again, this is just my opinion, this offers a sense of (created) place and mood, and as part of a moving set of images setting up a scene, it could be effective. As a still image that gets longer inspection, it offers less and is ultimately unsatisfying. Onward.

As a design I like the lower right section (boats & reflection) and the 'intent' of the upper left. The transition between the two is somewhat abrupt though. If some work were done to produce a more organic effect (natural cloud/fog transition) I think the end result would be more effective. -Greg-