untitled

tamtam tamtam. The cropped version I think works better. It is a truly stunning art image - the opinion of an Artist not a photographer. The concept is the Art - not the medium used or the method of post production

It seems obvious to me that this photograph is not about little boats, rather, it is about serenity, line, form, light and atmosphere. If this image had one boat less, would it be any less about any of these things? I do not think it was the intention of the photographer to photograph boats, but rather serenity.

 

This image does extremely well as an image. It does not matter to me what those boats are, if they are boats at all, or how many of them. This image effectively transcends it's subject matter to depict something more.

 

A job well done.

I think Vuk, Doug Burgess and mostly Dave Nance have pretty much expressed my feelings.

Aesthetically speaking, I'd say this: this picture looks (boring to me but) good, IF I stand at least 6 meters away from my monitor. As I get nearer than that, immediately, I see that boats were copied and pasted. This means that the feeling of "serinity" or what ever I was supposed to see is gone at first site. What I am left looking at is the technique.

Imho, there are at least three major categories of PShop works:

1) Minor touch-ups of actual photographs, which keep the photo as realistic (and almost as real) as it was. (Obviously, this doesn't belong to this category.)

2) IRREALISTIC photo-composites or heavily edited photographs, which, after editing, take a life of their own, and look and feel entirely different from any original image used in the process. (This could belong to this category.)

3) Composite or heavily edited images that end up absolutely different from the original photo(s), but which are still aiming at a realistic end result. (Question: could this be aiming at such an end result ?)

What's the point of such images? They seem to try to portray a feeling more than a place - and that's perfectly fine by me -, but then Why is the technique used so obvious to me? It seems that the technique used to generate a dream should either be hidden, or be really very impressive in the way some paintings are. With this, I'd say that 4 aces just fell from the magician's sleeves... Once I see the trick, it will for ever be a trick.

As a side-note, I am just plain amazed at what most people on this web site call "great photoshop technique". This isn't any close to good PS technique. It is poorly executed in so many ways - placements of blur and sharp areas, obvious cut and pasted elements, overall blur to cover imperfections...

What's more, I'm prepared to bet, that this was executed at low resolution (72 to 150 dpi, max 8 x 10"), and would fall apart under any level of magnification.

This image also really lacks badly in terms of originality. We have seen this sort of imagery a million times, and it's just a classical marine painting - executed poorly using PS instead of a brush.

As a closure, I'll add that I am really glad to see this as a POW, somehow. If I recall well, POWs are images supposed to generate interesting discussions, and certainly, this one achieves this goal, and at the same time gives us the opportunity to, perhaps, demonstrate the nonsense I personnally believe such images are. Now if the Elves wish to present great Photoshop works next week or next month, I'm affraid they'll have to look elsewhere...

Apologies to Tamtam for being so harsh, but well, that's just what I feel...

This is a wonderfully crafted image which grabbed my attention at first glance. I must

admit that my brain seems to recognize strange horizon issues, though. I submit the

horizon, via either clouds or the water betrays the trick. I believe that the manipulated

image issue is moot, they're pixels waiting to be adjusted or left alone, nothing more,

nothing less.

Nonetheless...in summary of my original comments: I do not like the aesthetics of this image because of two reasons: 1. It is obvious the boats are cloned which continues to distract me every single time I look at it 2. The image does not look real to me - none of the boats look like they belong there.

Am I the only one to notice that the lighting doesn't seem to match the location of the sun?

 

I am reminded also of the saying that the perfect image is created when nothing more can be removed...having the boats doubled doesn't really create a stronger image, just extra clutter. I would be curious to see the original photo(s), if actually based on photos.

The composition is off balance and leaves the eyes not really knowing where to go. This particular manipulation only adds a cheap feel. All of the technical problems could be easily over looked if it communicated something, but the corny cloning keeps the viewer so off balanced that it impossible to sit back and enjoy the piece as a whole.

Moderator comment: come on, people, we already know it's a controversial image according to quite a few people. But, really, we still do expect your contributions to this forum to be constructive criticism of the image, not mockery or commentary on photo.net policy.

Or, to put it differently, it's quite OK to skip a round.

Like Mary, I also try to e-mail whenever I delete or edit posts in this forum; since I deleted quite a few contributions and the reason for doing so being stated above, I hope you'll understand. If you don't, send e-mail. Please do not discuss policy in this forum.

Thank you and enjoy the rest of the week.

It's a nice image, but a bit sterile to me. It doesn't really do anything special to me. Esthetics are fine, and the author knows Photoshop very well ;). I guess that is also important...

 

D.

tamtam, i am jealous!

 

If my images were as thought provoking as this i would be making lots of money! We all know bad publicity is still publicity and your image, wheteher these rude 'anti manipulators' will admit it or not it is making them have an opinion of it. I wish i haad as many people give me comments on my image's.

 

You are an artist and your images are very artistic, including this one (especially this one). I commented early that this image did not engage and i thought it wouldn't engage many others, however it certainly has! Whether you can call it a photo or whether it must be catagorized soley as art is definately not the issue.

 

We have all seen it and we have all had something to say about it.

 

You make sure you keep on doing what you do, you make this site what it is!

 

Well Done

The end result is the statement of the artist's vision. Thank heaven for visionaries, they operate outside imposed boundaries. The end result speaks for itself, does it reach you emotionally or physically? Do you respond to the sensibilities presented? This image culminates in a particular vision, a sensibility is touched and we respond to its uniqueness. Ordinary vision is transformed.

I do feel like a tighter crop is necessary for optimum appreciation.

 

I love the effect the water allows our subjects in photographs. I don't get a feel of the velvet painting when I look at this photo. Quite the opposite. I was thinking how texture might bring it out more in depth.

 

Lovely photograph. Thank you for sharing.

I don't like computermanupulations. But this one I like. Looks natural. Nice job.

Question: If this were a painting, how would you rate it?

 

Seriously, how WOULD you rate it if it were a painting? Is this closer to a Turner or a Thomas Kinkaid? Maybe you like Thomas Kinkaid. I suspect that if you do you probably like this picture. But take a moment to compare it to Turner, who was the last great painter of sun-scapes and I think you'll find it comes up short. Not much visual tension, nothing really new to say, simplistic as opposed to simple, lacking in self awareness. In other words eye-candy as opposed to art.

 

Why compare it to a painting? The medium is the message. I suggest that heavily manipulated photographs fall much closer to painting in theoretic aspects.

 

Any comments?

The first impression is very powerful. It is an extrordinary ambience and "feels" surreal. Sadly it does not bear very close scrutiny and the obvious cloning cheapens it significantly.

Traditionally photographers would need to work very hard to create a picture such as this using film, logistics,experience, equipment,vision and some luck . I see no reason why an artist using modern techniques shouldn't work as hard. If the artist wishes to claim the work is something more convincing than an atractive scene, it is representational after all. Then all little more effort ought to go into concealing the obvious manipulation. The repeating boats seem to me to flaw the picture and expose it as a phony, beautiful as it is

edward.

 

now that i have recovered from the shock of seeing turner mentioned in the same breath as this low-resolution montage...

 

has anyone else noticed how most of the "top-rated" photos have a white border inside a black one? it definitely echoes the oil-on-velvet aesthetic pointed out in a comment i'm pretty sure i saw above at one point. let me add to that analogy the air-brush rendering on side of van. since i really can't imagine the nice people of photonet hanging glittery elvis portraits in their living rooms or commissioning beach scenes on the side of a chevy, there must be something quite special about the production of comparable effects in a photograph that makes so many here lose all predisposition toward good taste.

Edward, You pose an interesting question. Good art "grows" on you. Whether it's poetry, painting, photography, or any other art form and no matter what style or period, the more you explore it, the more richness, meaning, and potential meaning you find. It seems both simple and complex at the same time. It tugs at your gut, often without your being able to put words to just how or why it tugs, but tug it does in a mysteriously powerful way. The less artful art is, the less it tugs. Even if it had an initial appeal, the more you explore it, the more you find that any apparent richness, meaning, or potential meaning was but a fleeting and superficial impression...a kind of deception. And the more you explore it, the more it slips away from you rather than tugging at you. You grow weary of it, even repelled by it, as you discover it's superficiality. Rather than weaving an endlessly fascinating tapestry of feeling and meaning like good art does, artless art unravels. Unfortunately, this particular POW that seemed initially modestly appealing has quickly unravelled for me. The initial calmness I felt has become annoyance. The repeated boats hold no meaning. There doesn't seem to be any balance anywhere. The lighting seems placed just to be there. The rust-colored boat covers begin to look like frippery. The image lacks any internal logic. It'a artifice, not art. Regards, J

What "great talent" are we talking about here? The talent to render a decidely artificial looking sky? The talent to cut and paste from one image into another? The talent to clone what you just pasted? Those belong to the basic Photoshop toolset that most of us here can do (and do better). There is no "great talent" exhibited in this image, nor is there any "great skill of using computer manipulations". What I see above is an elementary excercise in technique that is lacking in aesthetic veracity.

Though I think the image is quite lovely it may have helped the purists accept it better had you manipulated it a bit more. I'd suggest making it look a little less cloned and blending the shadows and misty clouds to fit the scene.

Edward,

 

In answer to you question......

 

Viewing this from a painter's perspective (I was a painter long before I picked up a camera)as a "painting", this fails even more than if viewed a photograph.

 

In photography, especially landscape photography, there's an acceptance that some things are simply out of the photographer's control. It's not that the bar is lower, it's simply a constraint of the medium. The photographer is tasked with working with what nature offers and a limited set of tools and techniques and knowledge of subject to interpret the scene. With PS and other image editing tools things are certainly changing to a degree.

 

Painter's have complete control. Every brush stroke should have a purpose, every square inch of the painting should be carefully considered, each color chosen for a reason.

 

When manipulating an image to this degree, the painter/photographer (because they are now really a hybrid), has to be proficient in both arts. The final result must live up to the scrutiny of both mediums.

 

I could list all the specific shortcomings of this POW but they've already been pointed out. The above image falls far short for all the reasons listed by J. Doyle among others. This image fails to demonstrate expertise in either medium.

Lisa Grant's version looks pretty good. It hides the offending part quite nicely, and presents a different mood.

Maybe this will give it a different mood

an alternate suggestion

The impact of the resulting image is negative - and none of the fiddling alternatives can shake it away from an association with the "Green Lady" style of the mid 1960's (Google that if you need to). I'm still trying to fathom the use of "decent" here but I can only suggest going back and re-shooting the scene to create something of interest.

I really do apologize... but I can't help but see the humor in this. I hope Tamtam has learned a lot. Now THIS is real critiquing.