Hand of God

yo man

Your portfolio really is quite amazing. You have a definite knack, and the patience, for capturing the best lighting. I find this picture to be no exception in that regard, and like the original just fine. But, since this is supposed to be a discussion, I will note the one aspect of this picture that I don't particular like, and that's the reflection in the lake beyond the tree. It seems rather undefined, and I simply can't tell what it is. That detracts a bit from the picture for me. As for the reflection of the tree branch itself, I like the original because it doesn't confuse things. The variants with more focus on the reflection make the bottom part of the shot too jumbled for my tastes, and we lose the distinction between the actual branch and it's reflection.

Why put a shine on a kiwifruit?

 

Patrick has many great images; this isn't one of them; and no control of crop nor pallette can do anything other than elevate a prosaic subject into eye-candy for the easily pleased. That's my opinion. Yours may differ.

G., you are a master. Your rendition is much better than the original or Lannies color changing tries. That bottom was the show stopper and you put an end to that. Blessings, MS

If I had to pick a POW from Patrick's numerous good shots, I'd probably not

pick this one either, but rather his Surfin' Heron - photo ID 2530602.

 

(Just praying that this heron hasn't been added in PS...)

 

The heron shot has a perfect water motion while the bird remains as a still

island middle of nowhere in a very perfect composition.

 

Now, what about this "Hand of God" shot...?

 

Well, no, G., you are not a master - although I do like your sir name...:-))

 

But... I have to admit that your little tweaks in PS have greatly improved the

reflexion... And I'll even buy your suggestion for the zooming...

 

End of the day, I love the light in this POW, and the subject matter is rather

nice, but I think the color saturation, as in many of Patrick's shots, is a bit

overdone.

 

More importantly, I feel the present POW may have required a much wider

framing - although I did say that I would, at this stage, go even tighter. Still,

why not give this tree some space to breathe, which would allow for a

stronger composition with an appropriate placement of the tree in a squared

or vertical framing...?

 

Finally, I've got to agree with Richard: not a highly original image... I'd even

say that there are many fairly unoriginal shots in Patrick's folders.

 

My main concerns: after seeing this fairly pretty shot, have I learned anything

? Was I moved ? Nope.

 

Unlike Richard, I wouldn't care very much if I had taken such a picture.

Whereas I'd be proud of a picture like the surfin heron...

"I'd even say that there are many fairly unoriginal shots in Patrick's folders." - Marc G.

Give a photo a high rating for originality if it shows you something unexpected or a familiar subject in a new, insightful, striking, humorous, or creative way. Originality can be very subtle. A photo does not have to be taken on Mars to be original. - Photo.net FAQ

"but I think the color saturation, as in many of Patrick's shots, is a bit overdone."

Disagree. Patrick is one of the few people can use the full range of color in one shot.

I Am starting to wonder if ti is a good thing to get POW. :) Just Kidding...Nice to get everyone`s opinion about my work. I will never learn enough and I will never please everyone but I can sure try to improve everyday. Thanks everyone once again for all your great comments and critics.

Yongbo: "Patrick is one of the few people [who] can use the full range of color in one shot."

 

Some of us disagree that he has managed to do that in this shot to the fullest extent possible, at least to our satisfaction. I am not sure that many of us could have done better, but we like to try. My own suggestions were not attempts to make the best possible image, but to speculate on what the original might have looked like--and then to suggest the direction of a possible fix on the bottom 25% or so, hardly a total makeover. Given Marc G.'s suggestion, and my own common sense as well, I have to agree that a complete reconstruction of the original would surely involve some desaturation. I was concerned above all with the color at the bottom. G. has definitely offered a more appealing color than either Patrick's or mine, in my opinion. I have mixed feelings about her suggested crop, but it is a worthy effort.

 

I hope that Patrick will upload the original so that we can see what he started with. It is very difficult to work backwards in Photoshop to try to recover the original, and one never knows all of the possible manipulations that might have been done to the image. I looked only at color balance. Marc G. looked at saturation as well. G. looked in addition at the problem of the best amount of contrast. In other words, we have already identified some of the variables that were changed. There might have been others.

 

Patrick is certainly under no obligation to post the original, but I for one would like to see what he started with. I would then feel more comfortable about offering an alternatively post-processed image.

 

None of my comments are intended to detract from the image nor to challenge its selection as Photo of the Week. I simply like to analyze photos, if only to see if they could have been done better.

 

That kind of analysis is very helpful to many of us who are learning Photoshop but who are not masters of it, for it helps us not only to critique the present picture but it assists us in improving our own photographs. It is clear that some are much more experienced than I in analyzing what has been done to the photo--much less in suggesting how it might be made better. I do think that it is pretty clear that it could have been made better. Is there any point in trying on what Chip Cohen has called a "prosaic subject"? I think so, if only for learning purposes, and the simplicity of this photo makes it ideal for use as a learning tool where digital post-processing is concerened.

 

I frankly like the photo. Apart from the inherent beauty of this shot, however, it also offers some unique opportunities to learn more about the effects of post-processing. Therefore it was an excellent choice for Photo of the Week for those of who, in the words of Marc G., came "to learn and to share."

 

On the part of those of us who are not masters of photograpy--and never will be--I would still like to say that I appreciate very much the analyses and suggestions of those whose post-processing skills far exceed my own. There is no escaping digital post-processing in this age and the age to come. We might as well try to get a bit better at it, since the digital "darkroom" is the only "darkroom" that some of us will ever know.

 

Thanks again, Patrick, for an excellent photo.

 

--Lannie

"but I think the color saturation, as in many of Patrick's shots, is a bit overdone."

Disagree. Patrick is one of the few people can use the full range of color in one shot.

If you use an output device profile on some of his photos, you find out that many of them are NOT printable. I tried a Lightjet printer profile and found out that one of his photos is about 33% unprintable. That means that the colors are outside Lightjet's gamut. That points points out either lack of digital workflow or over-saturation. Or he uses a printer that doesnt have a problem to print bright and shiny (and flouroscent) colors. Whether the photo looks muddy or has a color cast is irrelevant because most people do not calibrate their monitors.

"Disagree. Patrick is one of the few people can use the full range of color in one shot."

 

Please show me any Canon 20D that can capture colors like he has in his portfolio straight out of the camera and I will buy 10 of them tomorrow. Velvia doesn't exist in the digital world. Well, it did, but Canon discontinued the D30. :-)

 

I have to say I agree with Marc on this one (!!! Someone get Marc some oxygen !!!). This just does nothing for me. Originality means something different to me than most I think so I am probably the odd ball out. I will say this is one of the better shots I have seen of someone trying to get an old dead branch to look good, but no amount of nice light is going to help this subject. And also, like Marc, I don't see much originality in Pat's portfolio. It's beautiful don't get me wrong, but seems just a bit formulaic. Foreground rock, water/snow expanse, clouds, saturated to the hilt. Beautiful yes. Original, no.

 

Like I said, I am the odd man out. Many really love Pat's work and I can understand why. He controls his medium well, only shoots in the right light (which I greatly appreciate) and his images are pleasant and generally would bring a smile to the viewers face.

 

Congrats on the POW.

Instead of saying "use the full range of color", I was trying to say "manage the full range of color". I am not totally disagreeing with Marc. But most of Patrick's pictures got vivid color and great details. Can anyone give me the proper definition of "Over Saturated"?

Dave, the composition on this one is quite unique, I like the way he handled the background (the fading horizon). I believe this was captured by the 20D, but not the original JPEG rendered by the camera.

My wife knows nothing about photography. All she knows is what she likes. She likes some of my images and hates others. Usually at the polar opposite of what I like.

 

Let's take Patricks portfolio for instance. Many here, some who I admirer (G included in that) really like Patricks shots. I can admit that they are a wonderful example of landscape photography. I wouldn't buy one, I wouldn't go see a show of them, I wouldn't visit his portfolio much more than to examine a POW recipients images. Why? Because they just aren't my thing. I look for originality to create the "best" for me. Technical merit has to be there, but original thought must also be present. Some would claim that particular images of his are the 'best' of that genre. By my standard of 'the best' they aren't. Who's right? No one. That's the beauty of art.

 

Many think Van Gogh's painting are brilliant. They look like 4th grade finger paintings to me. The 'best' is what the viewer deems is the best. No amount of explanation will change anyones mind. Trying to tell someone that something is the best no matter what they think is time not well spent.

 

The most you can do is explain why you like or dislike a piece and hope that some will gleen something off it that can help them on their path...

While the TYPE of shots Patrick takes may not be the most original (landscapes, seascapes, sunsets etc.), the high degree of beauty OF those shots is. So when one takes an average subject, but makes it into something really spectacular, that then becomes something original when compared to the thousands of others in its genre... at least in my mind anyway.

 

Perhaps Dave, you as a professional may not be interested in buying or even looking more than once at Patrick's work. However, I can assure you that you would be in the minority. I too am a professional, and I'd be more than willing to put one of his better photographs into my home. Same goes for your work. I think we can all appreciate excellent quality when we see it. When I look at Patrick's folder, I definitely "see it". When I look at this particular image however, I don't.

Moderator note: In the event you all notice various posts missing from here...

Posts have been removed because the violated the guidelines for posting on the POW.

Note that in the guidelines AND as a reminder at the top of the page EVERY week -- it says:

Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

Please feel free to start a discussion there about policy.

And a special note to our friend Chip Cohen:

Here are the terms of use for Photo.net - in case you've never read them.

" Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may include brief quotations and thumbnail images in your submissions that are permitted under the copyright laws as "fair use", provided you correctly attribute these to their authors. Furthermore, when commenting on photos in the photo Gallery, you may include a version of the photo under discussion in your comment, altered or marked up to illustrate your comments. By uploading photos to the photo Gallery, you grant to other photo.net members permission to copy the photo, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach tthe modified photo to their comments on the photo.

Congratulations, Pat!

 

I continue to appreciate the consistency and beauty of your work. Others have commented on your portfolio and other shots they thought better, etc. I guess when I first saw this shot I thought about you choosing good light in all of your shots. I thought about you having the patience to catch the light just right here as well. A majority of PN shots are missing this crucial ingredient. I also appreciate that there are still those who use film with such taste! :-)

This is an interesting thread in particular this statement: "Patrick is one of the few people can use the full range of color in one shot." I must say, this make Patrick sound like superman....LOL!

 

There has been much discussion on this topic, so I may as well add my 2c...

 

First, the digital camera captures the light in more "linear" fashion. What I mean by this is RAW data coming out of camera, needs a "correction" to convert it to useable a useable level. Depending upon this correction, one can have either vibrant, flat, neutral and even saturated photos straight out of camera (perhaps not to dissimlar to using different types of film).

 

Second, the camera sensor is actually capable of capturing far greater colors then it is possible to display on monitor or be able to print. Check out this article on Camera's color profile: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml.

 

Knowing these two points, my question would does the "True" response of the camera look like? Do we accept the true response of camera as processed by Canon's own software, Bible, ACR, or a "linear" response of the sensor (in which case the image would be useless)? What Patrick excels in (besides his good sense of humor) is way to present the camera response to the viewer that makes a very effective use of the color space and exposure.

Patrick--I'm new to this site, and read through some of the responses to your photo. Got bogged down in all the technical verbiage. Just wanted to say that your photograph reminds me a little bit of Da Vinci's Sistine Chapel, where God's finger is just about to touch Adam's to animate him. Your tree just touching the water gives me that feeling. I love your composition, your lighting, however you did it. Belisima!

nice one)