Chattahoochee Kayaker

I'm not particularly interested in the technical aspects of the kayaker or his pasted orientation within the image, or the post-technical discussion of others. All is see here is a lot of black, a lot of blue and a brighter area toward the bottom of the image..Because of the darkness, its almost painful to look at the Kayaker. That's about it for me....

"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."

 

Hi Leo... Of course, I respect what you're saying and this is not to take issue with it, but it is to counter that statement in general. I think having the two words "technical" and "realistic" in the same sentence is almost an oxymoron. If Adam needed to execute some technical gyrations to make the shot look more realistic, then he probably should have abandoned the concept and worked more with the original.

 

Obviously, this gets into all kinds of arguments about "What is Photography?" In my mind, true photography captures a split-second slice of life; Art, in the general sense, is any interpretation of it. What I see in Adam's shot is the latter more than the former. That being the case, let's just take his photo for what it is and step back and either enjoy it or not. That's my bottom line.

I don't think that technical considerations are ever irrelevant, whether one is talking "straight" photography (whatever that is) or "art."

 

Even in painting, brush strokes and pigments do matter.

 

I've seen a lot of posts on this one that take the form: "Don't dare critique this photo. I like it."

 

I like it, too, but I would like it better if certain technical aspects had been executed differently. There have a been a lot of comments on this one, but many with a decidedly anti-intellectual, anti-critical tone or message.

 

What is striking about the discussion so far is the number of "regulars" who have not even bothered to contribute, and many of those regulars are geniuses with Photoshop. Marc Gouguenheim comes to mind, but there are many others.

Nobody said technical considerations were "irrelevant."

 

The technical comments on this image have been incredibly obvious, contributing nothing. Most were made by people who didn't like the image, wanted it to look dumber, more "normal".

To some of us, technical observations regarding light are indeed obvious, yet we can only conclude from the rates and comments that many people in fact can not imagine how the image could have been captured or processed better. We see this over and over again, yet we're at a disadvantage because we are seldom able to get up from the computer, walk outside, and talk a picture that would clearly illustrate the point for the benefit of those who apparently can't visualize it.

 

This composite, when compared to all the other composites on photo.net, is average at best. . . . . unless, of course, you're a kayak enthusiast and the identification with the subject is all that matters to you.

Dennis: 'realistic look' as opposed to abstract. Following the laws of physics if you will. I was not meaning 'realistic' in the strict sense of the term. In my sentence, realistic was an attribute to 'look', which is by itself a very anbiguous term. Take trompe l'oeil for instance: it has to have a realistic look and has nothing to do with reality in the sense of 'capture'. Maybe 'naturalistc' would have been a better choice of terms...

 

I too go for split second slices of life, but that's just personal preference. Would you have liked it better had anybody taken a step back from this image and said 'I don't like it' without explaining why? A list of 'I like it' and 'I don't like it' would be even more unsatisfying than digit rating. I'm sorry if I didn't express myself clearly enough.

Sorry, Adam. You have some VERY nice images in your folders -

including this sand picture posted by Lannie -, but this POW

screamed "bad taste" to me. Let me explain my feelings in a few

words:

 

1) The colors are really waaaay over-saturated by "any" standard

(or at least that's how I see it). Therefore, the image seems to

stand like a lady on the street saying "I love you" to the guy in the

car. We KNOW she can't be sincere, and the same goes for this

POW imo: it is MEANT TO PLEASE, but to such an extend, that I

feel it becomes the opposite of "beautiful".

 

2) This picture immediately appeared to me for what it was: PS

trickery. And this means it was poorly done, as simple as that. A

"well done" PS work involving natural elements is, to me, PS

work that can't be identified as PS work. Nature is NOT artificial,

and therefore should not (imo) *look* artificial. Nor should it

raise an eyebrow or disbelief.

 

As I see in your bio that you are still young, but already seriously

involved with photography, I hope this post of mine will

discourage you from keeping this picture in your portfolio. No

harm meant - just an opinion. Regards.