Chattahoochee Kayaker

John, this is not a debate about "straight" v. "manipulated" photos. Nor is any negative remark about this photo by anyone here meant to "dis" anyone who is more creative. Some of us simply have some problems with this particular composite. I don't, for example, consider it enormously creative. I have some digital creations of mine that are posted her on PN that are even further out, much further removed from "straight" photography than this particular offering, and so you have missed your target if you see me as dismissive of innovative techniques and tools.

 

To Adam: I am not continuing to "bash" your photo. I like many of your photos, and I pointed out that I like the original shots. I am glad to hear that you conceive of this composite as a work in progress. That is welcome news.

 

For both of you, I don't see this particular shot as "heralding" anything about creativity. As posted, it is indeed for me a "failed" work. As for what it might become, that is something else entirely, but this is the one that was chosen as Photo of the Week.

 

Since I have spoken respectfully, but not glowingly, during this entire conversation, I will continue to engage in this discussion as I see fit. This is not, by anyone's stretch of the imagination, "cutting edge" work.

 

I am sorry if that offends. No offense is intended.

This image is not convincing because the kayak plate does not integrate into the long exposure plate. Many people here have correctly stated that the kayak doesn't feel right; we knew it before Adam revealed that it was a composite. There are several reasons for this. In order to properly combine two images many things have to be considered. Both plates should ideally be shot with the same focal length lens, the same height, tilt, pan, f-stop, speed, and the same lighting. No matter how good the photoshop artist, not all inconsistency can be fixed in post. This is often the reason that manipulated work is obvious to the eye but we can't always put our finger on why.

 

In this case, the two things that bother me the most are the inconsistency of the direction of the lighting on the canoe and the fact that its shadows, and those on the wake, are too dark. The fill from the reflected light, particularly on the water, would not allow the shadows to become so dark. Darkening white, like on the canoe top, makes it looks like gray mud, whether you are Ansel Adams burning-in in a darkroom or a pro working in Photoshop.

 

I'm sure that this has been a valuable experience for Adam and obviously very interesting for the rest of us. Congratulations on POW.

Hey Adam - a great image, started lots of discussion and therefore a very, very worthy POW. Cracks me up how much energy was expended speculating on whether it was PS'ed or not - why care? Skip the art; straight to the technical ;)

 

On Ansel Adams: There was a great show at the old DeYoung in SF many years ago with a whole section devoted to 'Moonrise.' A dup. negative in a light box; a direct contact print and 4 or 5 different prints he made over 30 years or so, each quite different from the others. So yup, he surely worked his material to within an f-stop of its life. Keep shooting, thinking and growing, Adam!

Hey, you guys have got to come look at the others in Adam's portfolio.

Thanks everyone for your insight. I almost felt damned for being chosen POW

but in the end I feel as if we are all on the same page. I can take the heat and I

believe I deserve it with this image, especially since I personally can see a lot

of work needed on this image. After all this is exactley why we are here isn't

it? We post our work in progress and see what the masses think? I have

learned a great deal from all of you and I hope to please you with better work

in the near future. Thanks again, and I regard all of you as comrads in our

endevour to persue what we love:photography, in every shape and form :) AP

Lannie, Adam: :-)

 

Djon

What happened to my comment suggesting some consistency in lighting direction? I asked that the last line (in a separate paragraph) be deleted, not the whole thing.

I think it very important to recognize that the photographer who composited this image, with two of his own original photographs, is (according to posted bio) 25 years-old and fresh out of college, with a degree emphasizing photography.

 

How many people without half the talent shown in his portfolio may harshly judge this photo has yet to be seen, but what's remarkable to me is that we can be assured that ten years from now, Adam's work is more than likely going to be paying his bills. Whether that be from "straight out of the camera" shots or manipulated images designed around a client's concept, the work is still valid.

 

I feel that the image is eye-catching at the very least with its vibrant color and concept - and the Photoshop work exceeds my own threefold. For that? Kudos! Keep experimenting, Adam - you can't please everyone all the time...but you can certainly please your own creative side at-will.

Thank you Chris : )

I think the issue of manipulation in an example like this, comes down to willing suspension of disbelief. For it to work as an image, nothing should grab the viewer as inconsistent. Star Wars isn't real, but we accept it as real as long as it doesn't violate simple rules we know.

 

In this picture, what bugged me, was that the wake of the kayak faded into nothing. Wakes don't disappear they go someplace else.

There are people here that seem to believe that anyone that does not gush over work that they like is negative, mean spirited, or worse. I think of POW as discussion and critique that we can all learn from.

 

Adam, you have a lot to be proud of. No work is perfect and so in the spirit of helping, we offer suggestions that may advance your work to a new level. Since you have recently fished some schooling you must be used to critiquing. Take all of the comments given, try to be objective when considering them, toss the one that you don't agree with, and move on with some new knowledge or insight.

 

Congratulations. You really deserve it. Good luck.

Very artistic & creative. Can I name it VIBOR?! (That's VIBGYOR without Green & Yellow)

Bret, I didn't notice any "gushing," but there has been plenty of nitpicking. The old "forest-for-trees" phenom. Not surprisingly, some of them work hard "explaining" their own work.

 

I like your little portfolio a great deal. Call that gushing if you wish. You are a fine photographer. Lose that portfolio statement :-)

 

Djon

Whenever I comment on these POWs (perfect analogy to Prisoner Of War at times), I always feel like one of the few who doesn't address the real hard-core issues of manipulation to whatever degree, the angles of film plates, moons lining up with the planets, etc. During these times when it's almost a rule of thumb that a photo is manipulated because it CAN be, I feel that too many critiques center on the extreme technical, and don't even address the aesthetic, side of photography. Many of us actually tell the photographer what IS wrong (the kayak should be 5 degrees to the left; the current would be swirling counter-clockwise; you couldn't have been standing there, you fool), not what we feel can be improved. In my extremely subjective world, I just think that the real magic of photography is often lost within these muddied waters. I live in New York City, and I'm lucky to be surrounded by photo galleries and museums, and too often I overhear conversations having nothing to do with the photograph as art, but rather as a technically-manipulated object, and I think they're missing the beauty of the photograph simply by overlooking it.

I know, that's what this forum is about. It's about addressing all angles of the photography, not just "do I like it?" And, I freely admit that I find it entertaining and fun. If I was lucky enough to have one of my creations featured in this column, I'm not sure I'd survive it well. Instead of feeling very flattered that my photo was selected, I'd probably end up packing up my camera gear and checking into a monastery for a while.

 

Adam, sincere congratulations on being selected POW. It's a great compliment, damn it.

Thank you all! I've laughed, cried, pulled my hair out and all at the same time!

This forum has really been quite a learning experience. I have enjoyed

reading the views of sooo many different minds that my head is still spinning. I

would get back to you all personally but my fingers would turn into smaller

numbs than they already are :) Well, thats all, and thanks again for everything!

Adam Paine

Here is another nice one. Looks like it must be a composite, but who cares? Either way, it's beautiful.

 

Adam, believe it or not, this week's discussion has been pretty mild compared to some. Other times, the discussion gets so acrimonious that the editors step in and take out large numbers of posts. That has not happened this week. Some photographers never show up to participate in the discussion when their photo is selected.

 

Thanks not only for the photos, but for the give-and-take. Without both, this forum would not succeed. Congratulations again on having your photo selected, even though, as you know, I like many of your others much better--also a common comment around here. It is not unusual for discussants here to shake their heads in disbelief at the opinions and preferences of others.

 

This photo certainly has succeeded in provoking discussion, and on that ground everyone has to admit that it has been very, very successful. --Lannie

Thanks Lannie! Actually believe it or not this one is not a composite. I had my

girlfriend hold a large loaf of bread and as the seagulls came swarming in

(like a Alfred Hitchcock movie) I snapped away. She's a brave girl for doing it

because we nearly attracted every seagull on the east coast! Thanks,AP

Sorry ....Landrum, :)

Great image, and I've enjoyed the dialogue. Thanks for making both possible,

Adam.

Totally OFF TOPIC but if you want one more on attracting all the seagulls in the area...

 

Get a heap of small bread chunks or chips, get the gulls interested then go for a drive around town flicking out a piece or bread every few seconds... :)

 

Much more friendly than two seagulls on one line... Not that I ever did that as a kid... :)

OK, I'll contend that PS manipulations should be judged as if they were paintings, so try to imagine that this was a painting then rate it on the following scale:

 

1 - should be painted over

 

2 - should be hung in a motel room

 

3 - should be hung in your grandmother's living room

 

4 - Wow man, what a groovy poster!

 

5 - should be hung in your living room

 

6 - should hang in a museum

 

7 - should fetch a record price at Sotheby's

 

Given that scale how would YOU rate it? I think its better than some of the previous manipulations that have made Picture of the Week (at least one of which was pure "motel-room" quality).

 

As for me, Wow man, groovy!

I might as well give my input as well....It is funny that you said your friend used this image for an R.E.I. ad, because that is EXACTLY what I was thinking when I saw this image. Forget the "real to life" or "composite" look to this shot (or shots)..How does this image deliver on an "instant appeal" scale?.. I think its obvious,(although after looking at the image for a while, something doesn`t seem quite right or "natural" with it..), that most viewers` initial impressions are very positive (and even might say WOW) !..I was equally impressed the first time I saw it, and that is the point I am trying to make...An image we create (film, digital, etc..) may have just one, or maybe even multiple uses ( or evoke quite different responses in those who view it)...But If Adam created this for fun,( or better yet for an Ad agency)..I think It delivers 100% !!

Even as a photographer, when I am thumbing through my favorite backpacking or nature magazines, I find myself going with my Initial reaction to a photo more than "picking it to pieces" after the fact.....Adam, If you are pursuing a career in Commercial photography...Keep up the good work !!

It boils down to creativity and vision ( no matter what it takes to achieve), when creating an image for advertisement...The potential customer could care a less about how an image is made, as long as it grabs their eye and makes them say "WOW, I want to do that too !"..As mentioned, you achieved this with the kayak shot, regardless of the method ... Maybe there should be an Out-of-camera POW and a "artistic, but manipulated" Pow section..

Well after seeing the original shots, I was surprised to find where they were joined... I actually thought it may have been three photos, 1 the blue background, 2 the creepy foreground that makes you want to stay on the shore and 3 the kayaker...

 

I have to admit for some weird reason I wasnt all that taken when I first saw the shot, but funnily I have grown to like it more and more after learning more about how it was made...

"Many of us actually tell the photographer what IS wrong (the kayak should be 5 degrees to the left; the current would be swirling counter-clockwise; you couldn't have been standing there, you fool), not what we feel can be improved."

 

This was a case where slight technical mishandling was exactly what could be improved. The composite suggests that Adam was striving for a realistic look (albeit of a hyper kind) and that these technical shortcomings were what was getting in the way.

Picture speaks itself, a nice picture