Published: Friday 1st of October 2004 02:06:42 PM
Joy of Life Agnes, this is why we are photographers !! O what a great image. Thanks for joining photo.net
Jayme Hall - Bardstown, KY
Original and cute! Love the hand positioning.
Jos Van Poederooyen
Original Intriguing shot.Love the whole sense of motion.
Unique and emotional I love it! A fresh (I hate that overused term..) and unique perspective. Terrific!
Wonderful. Stands out amongst all the other excellent shots.
Huh??? You have got to be kidding me...I can't believe all the high ratings that this image has received. 1-its partially out of focus, 2-its acatually MOSTLY out of focus. It looks like most of the image was manipulated in PS but to what point? Sorry for venting at this particular image, but the high ratings of images which are mediocre at best is becoming ludicrous. If you would all start looking at images with the intent of helping others take better photos rather than patting each other on the back in order to get your images on the first page, than this site would be much better off.....OK I'm done
excellent very nice pic ! well done ! 7/7
Beautiful and original.
J'aime vraiment beaucoup!Beau et dynamique....
Welcome to P.N., your portfolio is stunning I look forward to seeing much more.
excellent... no title well!
very nice and original!!!!
Welcome Agnes, excellent work. Model's right leg is slightly blurred, and if you crop a bit on the bottom you will get an impression that they are drifting in the clouds if that's what you want.
Special .... very special. Original and eyecatching as he..
Eccezionale! Complimenti! ciao.
@Rich: so these are your only arguments? oh my. By just quickly looking at your pictures i can tell you, why this image gets better ratings. the composition is strong, eyecatching, and the image manipulation works. this is art man! most of the stuff you see on this page (photo.net), is art! earlier the images were manipulated in the darkroom, now they are in photoshop, time moves, as does photography, and it will move further on. What if painting had not changed between renaissance and biedermeier? the same is now happening with photography, it's changing from analog manipulation in the darkroom, to digital manipulation on a computer - only because an image had obviously been edited in the computer, it doesn't mean that it isn't well done. think about it. --- great image, perfect editing, perfect composition. it simply works. 7/7 - well done.
just wonderful!!!! the way dhe is holding her hands, is a very nice detail, i love this whole photo, even with the dog ;-) cause usually i don't like dogs, and animals on photos....but in this case its different!!!
7/7 Spactacular! Great photo!
lovely This is a magical shot. Perfect. I couldn't imagine it working with any of the elements removed. The companion by her side, her legs in movement (skipping, probably), the billowing skirt, the hands positioned so daintily. Someone mentioned little red riding hood, and I agree, it is like a fairy tale.
And the clincher- they're running into the sea. Beautiful.
Simply Irresistible! Very artistic composition. 7/7
refreshing, surreal, feminine, and on top of that, very beautiful.
I like your works. Hopefully ,the large will look better.
fantatsic & enagmatic. idea & composition r brilliant.
Hi. Its one of the best photographs I've seen here for quite some time. Its icredible heart warming, it has humor, its highly original, its beautiful,its poetic, its artful... I can hear the music looking at it. ... I wished I could look at pictures like this more often...
Serendipity...full of life!
Very unusual and beautiful!
oh! Beautiful shot!
Work of art!
Only a woman could create such a masterpiece :)
7/7 ... 8-)
lovely ... looking forward to more agnes
Wolfgang... Comparing my images to anything like this is like comparing apples and oranges - My stuff is not intended to be art - merely a record of things I observe. If you do a search of the top photos (bt average) of the last five years, you'll see some truely stunning work - most of which I think you would also consider art. For example, take a look at the portfolios of these contributors: http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=484267, http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=543917, http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=609092, http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=628554, http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=947345, http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=53127, All of these and many more are standards by which I judge and evaluate images in order to qualify for a '7' rating. This image and others in the portfolio simply do not meet those criteria. I'm sorry if my standard of 'art' does not match that of the others here, but I just don't see that this image meets the criteria for a 7/7. --Rich
Too wonderful for words.
Ritch really...some people here are getting me nervous...after your bright demonstration, ritch, I only need to provide one answer : take 5 minutes and visit : http//:www.donadieustudio.com maybe, if the temperature is fine, if everything is cool around, going there - maybe - you will learn that photography is not just a question of focus...
I do agree with you Pascale...
Rich, or what makes a photograph We all learned about focus, in focus, out of focus.. well maybe one of the first rules,no? Then later we learn about colors, color combinations and so on. We learn about rules of third and how to crop, to use a frame. And then? If you follow all this rules you get a great shot? No, wrong!!! If Ilook at some of the greatest shots of all time, a lot of them are grainy.. or out of focus, or no rule of thirds, or cropped "strangely". The beauty about photography is that often the best pictures break all this rules to show us something we dont see on a daily base. Almost all of these photographs though have one thing in common: Content, message, emotion!.. so does this photograph. It does not only capture what I see, but more important, what I cant see! It triggers emotions and tickles my senses. it stimulates my brain.
makes me happy i always enjoy life. and this picture makes me even more happy ! very interesting image ! thanks.
ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC, REMINS OF ALLICE IN WONDERLAND AND MUCH MOORE !!! 100% PRO WORK :) BEST OF ALL
Significant Image Creation I love this fanciful image. Light, dreamy and romantic I'd expect Audrey Hepburn to be at the top of those legs! Superb sensitive created image. I wondered how many takes/attempts you made at this particular image before you were happy with this end result? The best thing about your images is that they defy all the conventional rules for photography yet they illustrate very simple and somewhat conventional themes and emotions. Just lovely image creation!
Superb story telling keeping a mystery, sexy, a go go
Une photo fantastique... Congrats for this marvellous moment... out of "Amelie Poulain". Not for the colors, but for the contrast in the sky and fairy-like atmosphere giving by the differently blurred parts. A dream come true.
Jean Pierre Romeyer
a pure miracle !
Great Excellent. Reminds me of Eliott Erwitt's work, and it wouldn't look misplaced amongst his pictures. Regards, Heiko
Simply put, lovely picture with a touch of elegance. Thank you for sharing
I totally love this shot. It is out of focus but that doesn't detract from the image overall. Philip's Audrey Hepburn comment is apt. Your other beach shot may be better in one or two elements (the position of the woman's legs, the higher shutter speed) but on the whole this is the better one.
JDM von Weinberg
I can see why it was chosen. Great and extraordinarily eye-catching. I find it makes me smile.
comment i love the lightning!
Response to by agnes donnadieu This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest. It is simply an image that the Elves found interesting and worthy of discussion. Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.
When including images, please make sure they are relevant to the discussion, not more than 511 pixels wide, sufficiently compressed and make sure to enter a caption when uploading.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Interesting image, but I don't like the crop.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I like the concept, the motion, and for the most part the execution. The darker clouds in the upper right corner I find very distracting. They remind me of hurried PS cloning which can easily produce a sort of telltale "banding". I'm not saying it is or that I have any problem with using PS. However, if it is cloning I think it should have been done more carefully. If it is not PS cloning then I think the darker clouds maybe should have been cloned out.
Response to by agnes donnadieu It is very good, but here is one that captures the same mood without the artificial ambience, in my opinion: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2587518
Response to by agnes donnadieu I do not understand what many commentators see as "unique" in this image? However, I do think that it is a wonderful image, and one that is worthy of merrit! Regards, Nick.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Wolfgang: Rich's images are very good also. There is no need to try to compare both works regarding ratings. That's useless and unfair. Now, about the picture: It's 'pastel', 'cool' look is really beautiful and provokes good feeling in me. The composition, although, seems strange. The tight, very horizontal crop from the legs only is interesting, but I believe there should be some more space in the upper margin. It's too tight there, in my opinion. Nice image in general. I don't mind about the manipulation.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Gotta disagree with you there, Lannie. While I like the photo you offer for comparison, I wouldn't say it's trying for the same effect as Agnes's photo. Agnes's photo has a surreal quality, which is what makes it unusual. The girl in Agnes's photo may be running after the dog, but may also have just dropped out of the sky, or may be about to launch herself back to her spaceship. Is that a skirt she's wearing, a parachute, or a power pod? Her blurred hands don't look quite human; is she a space alien? We don't, after all, know what her head looks like. That's what I think makes this picture so fun. The picture you offer, on the other hand, is a charming picture of a young woman frolicking on the beach, but it's not all that unusual, and I would go so far to say that it's really of a different subject. And as to the comment (not by Lannie!) way earlier criticizing the photo because the girl's right leg was out of focus: Oh, please! The blur is where the art lies in this photo.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Absolutely love it! I agree with others on the surreal feel of the image, and it's ability to evoke emotions. That's very high praise for an image, and this POW deserves it.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Agnes... i wouldn't change a thing... it's perfect as it is.... it makes me want to just keep looking at it.... i would certainly buy this and hang it on my wall.... 7/7
Response to by agnes donnadieu Obviously this is NOT a photograph - in its conventional sense. Heres a link to how the image was constructed - http://www.donnadieustudio.com/digital3.shtml
I don't have anything against digital manipulation. Maybe we should call this section the "IMAGE of the week" instead of "PHOTOGRAPH of the week" to forestall any future discussions about digital manipulation.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Thanks for the link Sreenivas. Yes Agne's image selected by the elves as "Photograph of the Week" shows that she has great visualisation and good photoshop skills but that many posters in this thread are giving her credit for capturing the image in camera instead of a being a lovely image made from a combination of three mediocre photographs. I agree with your recommendation that this forum be renamed "Image of the Week" for your stated reasons.
Response to by agnes donnadieu A very interesting comment from Sreenivas just above. In fact many institutions thinking about renaming "Photography" Schools to something like "Visualisation" or along that line. Unless you work in documentary or for papers I think there is no doubt that its not really from interest how the image is done, but what you create in the viewers mind. I believe thats how you have to look at a visualisation, like the one from agnes. I think its a marvelous example. It creates a mood that triggers mot only feelings and the sense of looking at something you have not seen before, but like people mentioned before me a "surreal effect", that makes your brain go "tick-tack" ;-))... Anytime a piece of art does that, its merit is proven already... no need to discuss it. I disagree therefor with the Photo.net introduction that this "visalisation" is not really one of the best... The image is a standout and cant be overlooked, where so many bird-pictures and landscapes and whatever other pictures (everyone can chip in at least some of his stuff)... are not worth a second look, despite the 6's and 7's they create in the "judging" section. We talk about present and future of photography. Its the question how can we use the tools even better we have at hand now to create what is in our minds-eye. So digital yes or not should not be ven a discussion. Digital is here! YES!! GREAT!!... What can we do with it. Photographers all over the world are exploring this possibilities. Agnes gives one possible and very nice answer to this.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Now we're getting into some discussions I've had with my local photography group. The traditionalists vs the digitalists. Both photography? This image, while very well done, is what I call "cut and paste" photography. It is not surreal in the sense of Jerry Uelsmann's work but merely employs parts of images and places them in a eye pleasing manner. Is it creative--sure. But is it a photograph or an image?
Response to by agnes donnadieu I agree with the above comment. This image is pleasing and deserves all the praise it is receiving. But a purist may frown and not call this an excellent photograph.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I find the way the girl extended her hands very feminine, in an interesting, adolescent way. The rotundness of her skirt and the slenderness of her legs also make for a striking juxtaposition. I would rather this were a real scene rather than a composite, but I could live with it either way.
Vincent K. Tylor
Response to by agnes donnadieu I don't really care for this, sorry. The entire thing looks cut and pasted.. which it was. At least make it look somewhat realistic. What's with the background/horizon line blur?? And rather than this ballet suit or whatever it is she is wearing, why not something remotely realistic for this setting?? I can see why some might like this, considering it has a fairytale atmosphere with movement in a seaside setting. But in my mind the fairytale aspect here is just overwhelmed by the cut and paste. Not a good thing.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Agnes Congratulations on your exceptionally creative image. This image conveys a wonderful, dreamy quality without being forced. There are many stories that it can tell, I get a feeling of being on top of the world in command of life. The dog representing nature that flows with us. I would be interested to know what it evokes in you, as well as others. Best regards, Morey.
Response to by agnes donnadieu This image is not only about "like me", "look at how beautiful my legs are", or the landscapes I'm in, or how sharp everything is. Agnes tried to evoke something behond the things you see... this might work for some, not for others... it does not matter. I admire the attempt and it works for me..
Response to by agnes donnadieu Interesting picture, Agnes; very lively indeed.
I disagree with Srinivas, photomontage is far from being a product of the digital age, being well established many decades previously. The modern master of this technique is of course, Jerry Uelsmann
This picture reminded me of something, and it is in Jerry Uelsmann's gallery No. 5 at http://www.uelsmann.net/; the photomontage of the woman with the wave breaking near/over her.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Yet another good vehicle for discussion. Successful creation that demonstrates that content is often more important than technical perfection. Invokes feelings so well summarized by Morey. The dog isn't just another part of the scenery or nature, he is a tireless companion sharing enjoyment and that completes the image, which might have originated in a series of shots of the girl alone.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I'm not normally a fan of Photoshop, in fact I really dislike the vast majority of what I see in it; generally it's just crass distortion of reality by people obsessed with technology and no artistic ability. But this is beautiful! Art at its best and I don't care what tools you used. I'd have this on my wall any day. Congratulations. I've given it one of my VERY rare 7/7's
Response to by agnes donnadieu If the purpose of the photographer is to provoke the viewer's mind,say, like in Dominic Rouse's works, than there's nothing wrong, imo, to use collages as a means to do it. But making a collage of an outdoor scene, thus trying to convey some mood/emotions to the viewer, means you're discarding the essence of photography. Because you should manipulate the light or you should combine the light from different (in this case 3) pictures. There's a shadow behind the girl's leg, a real one, and there's a shadow behind the dog, added in PS. The clouds from another photo are pasted (and merged) here but the horizon line appears behind them. We love kids, we love dogs, and we love stormy sea. Why not love the combined product of them? Especially, as some say, it's a piece of art.Maybe, it's some kind of art, but I doubt it's a photographic one. Regards. Blago
Response to by agnes donnadieu I agree with Blago. It's a very good surrealistic image but not in a photographical manner. I would like to see such image done in the real world, seen by a photographer's eye. This one is "just" a stunning digital picture. Regards,
Response to by agnes donnadieu Yes the image is a good vehicle for discussion. I'm a bit disappointed with the earlier posters who gushed and gave it 7s, because I think they just rated it on a glance. It's a nice idea, the composition is intriguingly offbeat, but the execution is flawed. If you look closely, as we tend to on this forum, it's clearly a cut and paste job: as with a magic trick, when you can see how it's done, it's not magic any more.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Photoshop is great for creating montages that could not possibly exist in the real world. There are several PN members who are quite good at this. But here there are too many obvious places where we're looking at an attempt to fix the image rather than create something. Too many muddy and blurry areas. I like the composition and think that the careful selection of model, wardrobe, dog, and weather would make for a worthwhile photo shoot.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I agree with those who say the idea is good but the image fails in execution. I can't see any reason for the blurred horizon other than to hide the cut and paste of the sky. Reminds me of the POW a few months back with all of the cloned boats-- once the PS work becomes apparent, everything falls apart. I guess the moral is if you're going to use PS for major manipulation, you'd better be good at it. I'm disappointed in all of the gushing as well and glad I'm not alone in thinking that this work is a little slipshod.
Response to by agnes donnadieu "If you try hard... you will be able to see flaws in anything thats inspiring or beautiful for a reason...." This are not my words, but the words of a good friend of mine,... I will never forget her words, as they hit the nail on the head and left a deep impression on me. Yes the image is technically not 100 percent perfect, but it evokes what it should evoke and it touches where its meant to touch.. I'm terrible sorry, but where many see a not quite perfect PS work,I see finally an image that does define itself not only on a technical level, but tries to send a message... I see joy...I see imagination... I see positive energy... I hear barking and splashing and I smell the water.... sorry guys, think I'm terribly unintrested in the minor technical flaws of this composit. ;-)))...maybe I just did not go to the beach for long time?? :-)))) I guess I like to send a message to the merit of content in our images. Again I have to include myself. I would be proud to have an image in my collection that creates so much besides the things that are obvious to any viewers eyes. ..Too passionate now??...;-))
Response to by agnes donnadieu But a German shepherd going tail-high away from the camera? I don't know, friends. Here is another of Agnes' photos that got a lot of attention but also has problems: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744382 If realism v. surrealism were the only issues here, then the photoshopping issue would not bother me a bit. I shop a lot of my own pictures to some extent. A lot of Agnes' work in this same folder is very good, in my opinion. Congratulations on PoW, Agnes. I don't mean for the nits on this one to mean that I don't appreciate your artistic vision. As is so often the case, I simply wish that the elves had picked another photo by the photographer who got PoW.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Agnes, here is a much better shot by you, in my opinion: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744388 You have asked us to take the surreal seriously, and for that I am grateful.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Felix I see your point, but, for me, the image looked funny from the start. The blurs didn't seem to make any sense on first viewing, which made it difficult to suspend my disbelief. And, in a fantasy image like this, you have to be able to suspend your disbelief. As someone pointed out in the thread on the POW I referenced above, it is like seeing the boom mike in a movie. Suddenly, you're no longer on a South Sea island, but on the backlot at MGM. I really like the composition (I tend to compose like this myself) and I think this is what a lot of people react to here on a gut level. It's just that it is too easy to see the man behind the curtain (another movie reference)...
Response to by agnes donnadieu This is a beautiful composite. (Look at the photographer?s site, under digital. She has the three original pictures posted: http://www.donnadieustudio.com/digital3.shtml). Too bad she did not provide the details here. I like the image posted, but I do not think people should give credit for ?capturing the moment?. ?Expressing a feeling?, perhaps! This artist is capable of expressing her vision(s) beautifully. Bravo! Though the end product is what matters, this is not a display gallery and many people here do like to learn. For me the image scores high praise for what it conveys and how it was created.
Response to by agnes donnadieu The horizon and the sea do not blend well in the photo and I not do like a lot the composite in this point. Sea is out of focus and clouds are in focus. This is the worst point of the composite actually. I would prefer an out of focus image on the clouds as well maybe. I think though that the girl is wonderfully pasted and the crop till her waste was very intelligent and this really makes for a strong photo. The dog I think that it does not add a lot to the picture. When I try to imagine the photo without the dog I believe that it is more strong as a surrealistic-minimalistic image. All in all.... although I disagree on certain parts of the image I believe it is a very interesting work of art and I would like to congratulate for the result and the pow.
Response to by agnes donnadieu The image at first glance seemed to be a manipulated image. If you take enough images, it is easy to see what is normally feasible to capture on a single shot. There are areas here that the in and out of focus areas are unreasonable. I think the idea is clever, and the thumbnail is captivating. The larger image is somehow false. It is interesting how so many do not seem to take notice.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I'm not a big fan of composite images with a lot of photoshop work. It's a beautiful image, but it's not great work. I've seen a lot of this kind of work when I was at school and personally, it just does nothing for me. It's not original at all. I have to agree with Rich on this one. The image is out of focus and it seems like the artist is trying to make something work out of nothing or maybe she just took it one step too far in PS. Although she does have great work on her site, I just don't believe this is her strongest one.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Childhood ... Freedom ... A long time ago ... Thank you! You brought me back there ...
Response to by agnes donnadieu i really like this shot. theres something very playful about it. and the waves and such flowing areound the figures make it very dream like. very well done :) adam
Response to by agnes donnadieu The picture struck me from the begining, perhaps in more of a subconscious way, as being a bit odd, as if all the pieces didn't really fit together. I don't mind manipulation at all, but the whole point of a good photograph is that the pieces do all work together. I like the idea, and this is a good attempt at it (better than some of her other works I've seen), but it doesn't quite click for me. I'd rate it an "ok" photograph at best.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I like how the arms are sort of detached from the body and how the compositional elements are "out of balance."*
Response to by agnes donnadieu I don't get this one at all. That ballet-dancer pose doesn't fit with someone who would run fully-clothed into the ocean with her dog.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Unless she is reluctantly following her dog into the water, afraid of getting wet.
Response to by agnes donnadieu My theory is that the elves preferred this one by Agnes, but felt a bit sheepish about offering it up to the rest of us: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2744382
Response to by agnes donnadieu As expressed before, the out of focus areas and the multi-directional lighting fatally flaw this piece (for me). I'm at a loss to appreciate it for anything more than the idea of the composition.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I thought this was a very interesting image when I first saw it a few months ago. At that time I was not sure what to make of it technically, so I think I ignored the technical aspects in order to ponder the artistic ones. This photograph (and photographer) definitely has a unique style that draws the eye. The out of focus blurry version shown here almost appears to be a quick mock-up for an art directors approval before moving on to a more polished final version. In some ways I like the impressionistic nature of this rendering, because it has a certain fluid and organic quality about it. It is somewhat difficult to really evaluate (or appreciate) such small images on a computer monitor. I am surprised that so many people are bothered by the technical aspects of this composition. After all, according to her website: AGNES DONNADIEU has been named No1 Technical Digital Artist for (the) year 2002 by the International Live magazine. Who are we to argue with The International Live Magazine? I guess what impresses me the most is the photographers originality and the choices made when putting this image together. I am very thankful for the differences between fashion photography and documentary photography. The major shortcoming here appears to be the failure to meet the expectations of the technician within us, as opposed to the desire for the emotional connection of the artist we hope to be. Think about how much better and longer art survives when compared to technology and you will have the answer to which matters the most.
Response to by agnes donnadieu With respect to Rich's comments: Why do we confuse the technology of photography with art? It's like mixing engineering with architecture. This is called photo dot net, not art dot net - yet we welcome and desire art. The gallery is full of the most appealing images. The bulk of the members, fantasizing about being artists, are primarily technicians. I myself have no artistic talent, although I wish I did. What Agnes did was art - not necessarily technical camera work. She is to be commended for her art. The bulk of us continue to plod along waiting for that exposure that actually looks like it could be art, while we fret over lens resolution, camera battery substitutes, developers, scanner resolution, digital technology... Most of us never develop the eye to produce art. Good job Agnes. Whether posed or PS'd or not, the image conveys an attractive composition. In or out of focus, the image is eye candy.
Jan Olof Härnström
Response to by agnes donnadieu Joyful and charming work. I had no idea it was a cut and paste, sure fooled me. Nice picture, very well done.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Its a beauty this image...isnt it? It devides us. Interesting pieces always did that and will keep doing it. It triggers again the question in me: "What is photography"... "writing with light"... I remember the translation. The tricky thing is that we get further and further away from that definition. Its not necessairly a bad thing, unless you name yourself a purist. If we have a close look at Art-Galleries, Fashion shoots and not even to mention advertising, it will be very hard to find any piece of "photograph" that is actually what it should be in respect to the above definition. All of them are altered. Paintings,photography and any type of visualisation is blending together this days...we are lucky that we can make it out in this photograph, or think we can. I was recently to a very interesting podium where a famous photographer showed some of his works, a lot of composits. The "freaky" thing was that the components the most listeners though they are digital or manipulated, were true captures and others you thought they are real was PS work. ..at the end it did not matter: At the end its like with everything: Technic is JUST a tool to achieve the result and not the result itself.
It's not the tools...it's the technique. It's not the tools I object to here: it's the bad use of them. I'd criticise it just the same if it were a single exposure on a Leica M3 with Tech Pan film, if the composition were not right, or some area that would have been better to be in focus was not. There may be some confusion about this because the problems related to poor technique will be different between the Leica and the Photoshop work. Looking at the picture with the girl with her skirt flying, it's jarring to notice that she's lit from a completely different direction than the man further in the background. That's an error that's easy to make in Photoshop, and very hard to make with a Leica. Pointing it out doesn't mean that the critic hates Photoshop, any more than pointing out a poor depth of field choice means that the critic hates the Leica.
Response to by agnes donnadieu this image is original, perky, and draws the viewer to think happy, especially in a world dominated by horrific events. agnes did a great job with this one.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I think it looks more like a still frame from an computer animated movie than a photograph. The girl looks very much like a marionette, especially the hands/fingers. (is this what the artist was after?) On the other hand, it conveys a dreamy, carefree feeling, and as a work of art is very well done indeed. As a work of art, it is beautiful. As a photoshop work of art, it is pretty good also. As a photograph - well, I wouldn't judge this as a photograph. Where I think thais image excels is in the execution. Scott
A Wise Ass I'm going to abstain from commenting on this work for the time being. But I will applaud Rich for daring to stick his neck out to say something different (that's not to say that I agree with him). So many of the earlier comments gushed with sugary, over enthusiastic praises that seemed to lack grounding in honest, attentive, objective, and yes critical appreciation that makes a discussion meaningful. It was a bit oppressive.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Sorry to "oppress" you Juun but it is a lovely photo. Josef
Response to by agnes donnadieu Here is an "image" I put together in a 3D application. No camera was used for any part of the scene, no photo textures were used. Everything was generated in the program. This is a crude example of what can be done to create photorealistic images. the elements in this image are assembled and resemble real objects (or could if I spent a couple of more hours on it) does this mean it is a photograph?
Response to by agnes donnadieu I guess they don't want me to show you the image. Sorry I tried to load the file didn't work, but you get the point.
Vision from outside the box I am astounded that so many "photographers" are threatened by the creative means with which a finished pre thought-out image has been created and presented in order to provoke, emulate or stimulate a response. After all, even a camera using light sensitive materials is just a recording device to control what's been framed within the rectangle. Digital cameras are another type of recording device that create imagery, but should they be considered photographic, because they no longer use light sensitive material to record their imagery. I think we're already outside the traditional box, let's see where this can take us and how much creativity and thought provoking art can elevate us. Seems like a lot of folks need to let their definition of photographic imagery go. What's happening in the world now is destroying the myth of the box as the one and only true "photography". Again, get past the technicalities, and see how the image speaks to you (or maybe not!) and how it might suggest even physical and visual incongruities. Skys the limit!
Response to by agnes donnadieu Avatar, we are still inside the box. Photography is about catching the light. It doesn't matter if the device is film or digital camera. We are not painters. But it does not mean that only painting is art. This is a composite image, that is hard to achieve without making mistakes in light, shadows etc. It looks surreal only because it was not seen and shot by photographer in the real world. It's surreal only because it is composite and because of heavy PS work. There are no photographical skills in it, so sorry about saying nothing. Regards,
Light-sensitive material Uh, digital cameras do use light-sensitive material to record the images. It's a light-sensitive array of electronic sensors. Much like grains of silver, a physical change occurs when light strikes them. Digital cameras record it differently, but in the case of anything you've seen on this web site, all that means is that it was turned into digital a bit sooner than it would have been otherwise.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Maybe I'm not cut out for surrealism, but this image does nothing for me. Other posters have raved about the emotional content of the image compensating for the technical flaws (the horizon blurring is especially obvious), yet I find it hard to see true emotion in something so stylised and artificial. The strange clothes, the weird hand positions - they don't say "whimsy" to me, they *jar*.
possibilities The striking thing for me about the views expressed in many of the comments above is that, like the wider digital/traditional debate, they tend to be very polarised. On one hand there are those who say they have no problem with heavy manipulation/ montage as long as it's well done: "it's the feeling evoked by the image that counts". On the other hand, there are those who adopt a more traditional view of photography as "true record" (perhaps even if the scene is staged or the image later selectively cropped, dodged, burned, etc). Each camp, however, seems pretty reluctant to acknowledge the validity of the other, or at least to acknowledge why both camps are so powerful in attracting adherents. I think that the differences between the two groups diminish as the subject matter becomes more abstract or surreal, but an image like that submitted by Agnes which represents a very human scene (irrespective of whether or not it is intended to be recognised as a montage) clearly raises hackles. My instinctive tendency is to fall towards the second camp, but I agree with Mark Michaelson's observation above that many of us (myself included) spend a lot of time arming ourselves with technical knowledge and unsuccessfully trying to capture, rather than actively to create, art. I think it is fair to say that this approach is a tough one - truly great images are rare but enormously satisfying (so I am told!). I believe a big reason why we do this is because one of the most attractive things about photography is that it is capable of capturing and showing real moments, just as they were. This is very emotionally satisfying for the viewer. If a photographic image speaks to us, it is inspiring often because it demonstrates that the scene captured is possible. Something moving or meaningful happened and could therefore happen again. That is inspiring not just from a photographic point of view but from a human point of view. It gives us hope. In some ways a well-executed manipulated/ montaged image can be more immediately powerful. A beautiful creation can show us things that we would probably never be able to capture on film in years of waiting for the right moment. It can therefore evoke remakably strong feelings and be truly inspiring. (Obviously, advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon.) However, if I am aware that a beautiful image is a confection, my feelings are often bittersweet. They are tinged with the disappointment that comes of knowing that what I am looking at never happened and may never happen. It's a bit like the disappointment I feel when I emerge from a transporting film like the Lord of the Rings and am forced to remember that Middle Earth is a fantasy. Of course I wouldn't argue that the movie should never have been made, but I would be happier if I could convince myself that such a world existed somewhere. I quite like the image submitted by Agnes - it says something to me. I would like it even more if I believed it wasn't a montage.
Response to by agnes donnadieu get off it people and get with the times. photography refers to the lens whilst film is quite simply the same as paper. references to writing center on the writing instrument, pen, quill, pencil, not the substrate, paper. photography=light writing, writing with light. lens and light=stylus, pencil, pen, quill, etc. film=paper, canvas, papyrus, clay. once this truth has been absorbed by yon shallow minds, this argument will cease.
Response to by agnes donnadieu "I would like it even more if I believed it wasn't a montage." this sentiment is akin to a mother whose wish for her newborn is to remain an infant forever. whilst photography's genesis was in the transcription of reality, it has matured and should no longer be held to its former characteristics. to insist a photograph be rigorously based in reality is to treat it like a child. would we regard the artistry on the ceiling of the cistine chapel more if we discovered the artist used a room full of models in its creation, or less as we realize he used one model at a time and "montaged" them together?
Response to by agnes donnadieu Thank you for enlightening us, Alasdair. I know that I certainly gained new creative insights from your two contributions.
Response to by agnes donnadieu After looking at this image several times this week and viewing agnes's portfolio ... I will say I'm in the "image" camp, the ART argument I'll leave to others, as we all have a different view of what is art. Much has been discussed about a surrealistic look that can be "created" by a digital process ... My taste run more to say William Egglestons work ... from the mundane to the surreal using a more traditional method. That said I agree it's a brave new world, and that the digimage IS the a tsunami of the future, it is what most people want to see and create.
Response to by agnes donnadieu "to insist a photograph be rigorously based in reality is to treat it like a child. would we regard the artistry on the ceiling of the cistine chapel more if we discovered the artist used a room full of models in its creation, or less as we realize he used one model at a time and "montaged" them together?" This is a silly argument. Photography from the very beginning has had practicioners who've tried to imitate painting -- it's not a new thing at all. However, then and now, many people feel that the medium draws its unique power from its capacity to invoke "the real" in certain ways that other art forms cannot. If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?
Response to by agnes donnadieu I can respect people's viewpoint regarding heavy manipulation of images for artistic purposes, though after a point I find it a stretch to regard it as photography anymore. Painting with pixels can yield some interesting results, but they tend to be more curiousities to me rather than lasting and compelling subjects. Regarding this particular construct, my first impression was of the an old Post magazine cover or ad from the 50's... a nice bouncy, free and happy feel. It works in that manner, as graphic art. -Greg-
Response to by agnes donnadieu Cute shot. Looks like a post card I'd see for sale on a rack next to the register at some foofy accesories costume jewelery shop on Union Street. I'd have more admiration for it if not so obviously heavily manipulated. Not a negative per se but it makes it a digital graphic image and not a slightly tweaked photograph in my book. Does my book matter to you? Probably not. But that does not matter either.
Response to by agnes donnadieu " Photography from the very beginning has had practicioners who've tried to imitate painting" for everything there is a beginning and an end. whatever photography's beginnings it is now moving on. should painters be required to use cave walls? the medium will continue to draw its unique power from its capacity to invoke "the real" but it does not exclude its capacity to create realism. if there was a lens there was photogrpahy. it is not about film. "If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?" Indeed I am although it might change how much I would pay for it
Response to by agnes donnadieu "If something you took for an oil painting were revealed to be a photograph manipulated to look like a painting, are you saying that would not change your evaluation of it?"
"Indeed I am although it might change how much I would pay for it."
That sure sounds to me like you'd change your evaluation of it!
Response to by agnes donnadieu "That sure sounds to me like you'd change your evaluation of it!" sir, if you would pay the same for a one of a kind oil as for a photograph manipulated to look like an oil then i will thank you not to manage my affairs. an oil painting is an oil painting is not a photograph. if i paid the same for them i do not expect my orange to taste like my apple. if i pay more for my apple i do not expect it to taste like my pear.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Completely agree! And a one of a kind photograph produced by capturing the actual event as it happened when it happened is not a manipulated image in which things were cut and pasted to make something appear as it did not happen. Big difference! Seems we agree 100%.
Response to by agnes donnadieu By the way, there's no special place in heaven for "straight" photographs -- there's all sorts of "important art" that incoporates photographic imagery in various ways. But it's perfectly reasonable for people to say that THIS image, were it a photograph, would appeal to them more than it does as a work of photoshop montage. And it's equally reasonable for people to like it for what it is.
Keeping it real. (Or not.) I don't think the disagreement is not as simple as "digitalist" versus "traditionalist". I may accept both apples and oranges, but I'd like to know that an apple is an apple, and orange is an orange, so that oranges can be compared to oranges, and so complementarily. What do you think of this? Joel-Peter Witkin's photographs are extraordinary not only be he dreamed up such magnificent and bizarre images, but he created the sets, found the props, went to the morgues to find the corpses, spent hours handling them, sought out and befriended the incredible people who graced his works, directed these people, and then took the picture. Somebody else could dream up equally bizarre and beautiful images, but this person's process entails acquiring stock images from others and cutting and pasting elements of those images together to realize his the initially imagined image. Do they deserve equal merit? Personally speaking, it doesn't seem that hard to dream up bizarre/surreal images. And with all due respect, Beau, and I do mean that sincerely, even if Michaelangelo painted the models individually rather than collectively, he still "painted" them. He didn't just paste them up. Somebody had pointed out earlier that separate images pasted together have a tendency to look surreal without any effort from the artist. I think that's good point. As for the image, it's nice. It catchy. Maybe even "lovely". But some of the remarks left earlier like "spectacular", "7/7", "Too wonderful for words", "Perfect!" kinda weirds me out. I say, keep it real.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I don't consider this as a photography. It's the same as if you want me to evaluate a sculpture. But ... I like the pose and "cropped" upper half of the girl's body. It gives the picture a very strange feeling. But if I look closer there's very obvious bad (and brute) use of techniques (if I can evaluate this because there are no photographical skills to evaluate only PS computer-based skills). So the feeling is getting worse with every next look. It's good for advertising, to evoke emotions at the first sight. But it's hard to be a photographic art.
Response to by agnes donnadieu "And with all due respect, Beau, and I do mean that sincerely, even if Michaelangelo painted the models individually rather than collectively, he still "painted" them. He didn't just paste them up." Juun, it wasn't me that wrote the thing about Michelangelo, it was the guy I disagreed with.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I have divergent feelings on this image. As an image I do not like this photo for a number of reasons already stated. I think several of her other photos are far better in composition and quality. However, what I really like about the photo is the thoughts its provoked from everyone here. Art/Photography promotes and provokes thoughts. In the past month that I've read comments here, I've read some of the most thoughtful remarks from both sides over this image. This photo along with others comments have taught me a lot. The discussion makes this photo valuable to me.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Fantastic photo in my opinion.
Response to by agnes donnadieu as a photo-montage/photo-collage i find this work worth looking, but a photograph this is not. a danger of misleading one into seeing it as photograph, a rare moment captured in time, a rare instance of a rare occurrence, a perfectly focused synchronization of elements in frame will in the end create a grim result - blindness. it is a wonderful work as long as labeled correctly. k
Response to by agnes donnadieu Sorry i must say this image is a loser.
Not only is it obviously faked,it's very badly faked and doesn't look very interesting anyway
Response to by agnes donnadieu I still think its the result that counts and not the way you get there. It does not matter, if you spend endless time and efforts in an image or if you achieved the same in a blink... the viewer has no knowdledge of that and should not need any of it... the visualisation has to work/or fail for itself, without further explanations. Everything else is in the best case satisfaction for the people who are interested in the "behind the scenes". If I see all the thoughts and feelings this image has evoked.. in either direction... then we dont even have to "judge" it anymore... its a winner, a standout.. however you like to name it. Its not even from interest anymore if somone gives it a 7, a 10 or a 1. We should all be happy that images like this leed to such a spectrum on reactions on this site. We should be happy that images like this leed to emotional reactions diametral across the scale.
Response to by agnes donnadieu nice image, but it never happened. Too bad.
Motion causes blur - emotion causes dispute :) I must say that I stopeed reading after a while because the comments are much less interesting than the picture...
I do not agree with Vassili though. IMHO it is ok for the sea to be blurred and not the clouds as the crashing waves are moving much faster than the clouds. When I saw the image a couple of months ago I liked it due to it's strangeness - it reminded me of Magritte's paintings - surreal.
It is an excellent image and while we will never all agree on that (some like Picasso, others Dali), the fact that it has evoked this many comments (besides the fact that most of us like to "hear ourselves talk") is respectable. Well done! Oh, also that is a rather interesting skirt :)
Maria Di Liegro
Response to by agnes donnadieu I've admired this from the first time I saw it because it's delightful and spirited. That's all, really, because I've always felt that the emotion/communiction of the piece is always SENIOR to the technical aspects.
Response to by agnes donnadieu ah, yes, speaking of Magritte, all I can say is nice images, but they never happened. Too bad.
A true magician never reveals his tricks... The imagery is very nice. Beautiful and surreal. I think it would have been more intriguing if the subject had a purpose. But it is definitely not a photograph. I think the only mistake the graphics artist made was showing how he made his work. A magician never divulges his work, no one would pay to see him perform. Especially if the art is as simple as 5-10 minute photoshop copy and paste.
Response to by agnes donnadieu shame agnes is too busy to bother to contribute to the conversation, or even express any gratitude for the very kind comments above... another stunning photo.net community production.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Maybe she does not know yet, Duncan. Would you sit by your computer and wait for an e-mail telling you that one of your shots had been named Photo of the Week?
Response to by agnes donnadieu Excellent work, a well deserved POW.
Response to by agnes donnadieu I like it very much. Good job. -mazza
Response to by agnes donnadieu http://www.donnadieustudio.com/digital3.shtml This page, from Agnes' website, shows the various components that were digitally combined. Although I'm a Henri Cartier-Bresson fan (no cropping, and 50 mm lens), I still can't help being arrested by strong images.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Roger S. Thanks for posting that link. She sure captures the human form very nicely. Personally I liked the stand alone, orginal, picture of the girl better than the PS'd one. That does capture a very unique moment in time.
Response to by agnes donnadieu Is it just me, or has a lot of this discussion been about semantics? If you define a photograph as some people have - a record of a moment in time - then this doesn't qualify. Personally, I think the art form of photography is big enough, flexible enough, and open enough to incorporate many different treatments of photographic work, but I wouldn't assume that everyone would agree. I like this image. It has an interesting and surrealistic feeling that I find appealing. I often don't like overly-manipulated work, but this isn't really pretending to be something it isn't: some of its success comes directly from the elements that are the most "fantastic". Onward.
Excellent!!! I just wanted to say that I'M IN LOVE WITH THIS PIC :)!!!!!!! Agnes, you did a WONDERFUL JOB!!!!...this is art! Look at this, the atmosphere is great, wow!!! Trully beautiful, you have all my admiration for this picture, don't stop your good job Agnes! Karine
weird No doubt a masterpiece in photographty and Photoshop. But after a while I realized something is weird: a fully clothed woman with a fancy dress and a dog (still completely dry, by the way) are running into rather big breaking waves? Naah!That's not real life, but still it's a very nice picture.
no title no message