ShadowMan #4

ShadowMan has returned ... off for a little late night fishing on

the coast ...

 

I appreciate any comments or critiques. Thank you.

hey thats a wonderful composition, very creative :) mystic and sweet ...

Wow...this is fantastic. One of the most original shots i've seen in an age..Very well done.

Gee Jason, you need to get out more. Visit some museums and art galleries. (8-0

 

But seriously, this is a fun and fanciful image.

I just can say nice it is. original and beautiful.

Original work.

 

Regards...

Hi David, first off thank you so much for all your extensive comments to so many of my pictures. I appreciate your interest in my work very much.

 

And about this series I can only say that I really love this playfull and almost adorable images of the adventures of the shadowman. It shows such a great doses of creativity and skill in photography and I bet in Photoshop too to come to such a lovely creation. It's like a comic strip. I enjoy it and I look forwards to keep up with this project David. I whish you lots of creative inspiration.

 

Kind Regards, Ada:~)

 

PS. Alas David, I'm not allowed to give the ratings I think this picture deserves:((

very good...i like all of them...congrats.

Thank you for your interest and kind comments on ShadowMan. He is one of my favorites as well.

While some might do this the "modern way" and use Photoshop to create the backgrounds, I must point out that 99.9 percent of the image here is NOT Photoshop.

 

I construct elaborate sets in my studio that create these images, lighting everything carefully to create the shadows. In fact, in this particular image, I used a two-foot tall cast-iron lighthouse that I have in my home (in ShadowMan #2 I used a tall cast-iron Eiffel Tower I own for that image). The work involved is very time-consuming but a lot of fun. The only real Photoshop work is removing any "string shadows" that I use to hold objects from a tripod boom where necessary. The image above shows the "set" for this particular image before I shot the final image.

 

And with that, I wonder where this little fellow is going next ...

 

David :)

 

 

Very creative ... reminds me of the old movies and old animations. A lot of work and detail. Very impressive!

Your set construction is almost as interesting as the picture. Real craftsmanship at work here, photo-puppetry.

 

It's funny how everybody is so hung up on P'shopping nowadays. Image manipulation has been happening for a long time before there were even computers, with people interjecting fairies and apparitions to outright placement of objects and reflections by documentarists such as Eugene Smith.

Pure artistic work in every sense !

what an originality !

 

a pleasure to see your work !

 

erwin

Nice to see someone create an image by busting their ass to actually create it. I appreciate it greatly David. I know how hard it can be especially with the knowledge that people can knock something like this (or anyone of my images) off in a half hour with photoshop.

 

The thing thats great about it is the feeling you get from the image. You know how much work went into it and that you achieved what your mind saw without help from and IC.

 

Dave

Yes, I agree about people's views (hangups?) on Photoshop use. This has been, as you've said, going on WAY before digital came along.

 

Personally, I prefer to use PS as little as possible, aside from sharpening, minor colour adjustments if necessary, the normal "digital darkroom" stuff. I guess I'm old-fashioned that way. I cut my photographic teeth on film (slide) and there just wasn't room for errors. As for people who are much more creatively inclined to use Photoshop for their work, I have nothing but respect for them as well. (And sometimes I often find I wish I knew how they'd done that in PS ...)

 

Still, there is something to be said for doing it the old-fashioned way. It gives me a sense of creation that I (personally) don't get from using PS. If I could make my "puppets" float without strings, however, I would. But then, if I could do that, I probably wouldn't be using those powers for good ...

 

Thanks for your comments, they are always appreciated.

 

David :)

 

 

David, try transparent monofilament (fishing line). That should take care of PS totally... :-)

Thanks for the tip. That would probably make things a whole lot easier. I'd actually thought of it a while back, but since I didn't have any handy, it was one of those "Yeah, I'll get it later" things ... and later never seems to come! But I'll take your advice. Thanks. :)

I just can't believe that someone gives this photo a 3/3 rating. The people from photo.net have to find a solution how to sovle that problem. It's really ridiculous that an anonymous member can rate every single picture such low, and we don't even get the opportunity to see his pictures and to know why our photo is rated such low.

 

But a beautiful photo from you, David. It's tells a story, very original. The lights and composition are just perfect. 6/7.

 

- Peter.

Thank you for your comments. While this is not the forum (in this particular stream) for addressing the rating system here on PN, I agree, it's a problem.

 

Having said that, one has to remember that any rating system is biased by the human experience. One person's idea of art is another's yawn. In the same vein, one person's "7" is another's "5", and one person's "7" could be a "3".

 

I believe that the "Aesthetics" category is a sound category only in that it reflects what one person feels is pleasing or displeasing to the eye. In that sense it's a gauge of what impression the person initially receives from the image. Some people will like your stuff, others will hate it. That's a fact of photographic life, but it's so much a fact of just about everything we see, hear, or read.

 

The "Originality" category, in my opinion, is seriously flawed in that nothing is truly "original". I mean that in a general sense only (so I don't want people writing me, debating what is "original" and what is not). One could argue that we all deserve "1" for "Originality" when we submit a portrait, a landscape, a still-life, a nude, an environmental portrait, a sports image.

 

I feel that the "Originality" category should be renamed to "Creativity". It may seem like semantics to some, but the subtle difference is an important one. Personally, I feel that the reason many people rate "Originality" so high is two-fold: First, if they like the image and give it a "6" or "7" for "Aesthetics", they feel compelled to give a likewise "Originality" rating. I've seen so many "7" portraits that are simply "1" on "Originality" (if you consider my earlier argument on what is "Original" and what is not). That is not to say that the image itself is not highly "aesthetically" pleasing. It's a "7". But to say it's "Original" just because it looks good is simply not true. Secondly, I feel that people give high "Originality" ratings because what they *really* feel is that the image is "creative". That's my take on it, anyway. I often give "7" on an image for aesthetics but a "5" or "4" for "Originality" (although I too am guilty of the automatic "7/7" or "6/6").

 

Although I've gone on too long with this diatribe (my apologies), I feel that, while flawed, the current system *does* provide a "gauge" for how people react to your work. If you get a lot of 3/3's and nothing much higher, then in all likelihood the image is not overly pleasing to those people. I seriously doubt there is one patron simply sitting there all day giving 3's to people (if they do, they *really* need to get a life). On the other hand, if an image receives a lot of "5", "6", or "7" ratings for aesthetics, then you can rest assured that the image is pleasing to those people.

 

I'm almost done ... bear with me a moment longer.

 

Having said all of this, I feel that the best guage are the comments we receive. I put much more stock in what an individual has to *say* about what they like or don't like in my images than some abitrary ratings system that is inherently based on personal biases. If you like my image, say so! If you hate it, then tell me why. I learn a lot from my successes, but I learn MOST from my mistakes. (And I've had a lot more failures than successes, making the successes all the more sweeter.)

 

So: What do we do about the infamous "3/3" rater who is supposedly haunting the walls and the halls of Photo.Net House? Can you charge a fee for any rating under 4? Of course not. Some of the 3/3's are legitimate. Can we force a comment, a reason for their dislike? No. The "revenge raters" will simply say they don't like it. The real raters who simply find the image displeasing will say the same thing. You can't win.

 

Do we make all ratings non-anonymous? Certainly we should. It would make one think twice before leaping, and we could all do that more often.

 

Do we expel someone who gives consistently low ratings? I think there is enough talented people here who would know the difference between a "revenge rating" and an actual rating that explains why the person rated an image so low. So yes, I would say, kick those people out if they deserve it. Whether this can be policed is another matter.

 

In the end (I'm there, trust me), just go with your gut. That's my call. As I said earlier, if you're getting generally high ratings in "Aesthetics", you've struck a positive nerve with viewers of your work. If the comments are positive and constructive, again, you're on the right track.

 

David :-)

 

PS to all: Please don't take this as me sounding off and please don't write trying to debate any of this. I'm just responding to a young man who is very talented in his own right and trying to offer encouragement. Thank you.

 

 

The use of aesthetics to judge the artistry of an image is sheer folly in my opinion. You might as well call it the pretty picture rating. I am not sure why an image has to be pretty in order to be good. It is kind of silly to have the definition of good art constrained to sunsets, landscapes, animals, flowers and soft focus portraitry (no hate mail please, I am being sarcastic).

 

One cannot use the "ratings" here as a sole measure because it will vary depending on the sample size of the visitors to the site at any given moment. I have double posted images in the past and gotten significantly different ratings each time.

Richard, I agree completely. My response to Peter's concerns over the PN rating system was merely to reassure him that, given the current system, you can be reasonably sure that people like your work based on the comments ... and yes, to an extent, the ratings.

 

I have re-submitted images myself that have received the "double-standard", leaving one more confused. But that's going to happen and we all have to realize that.

 

I'm not professing that an image has to be a "pretty picture", not at all. The "Aesthetics" category is just a name in this regard. I find dramatic war images that often show human cruelty and suffering highly "pleasing" (for lack of a better term) only in that they show the drama and dynamics of dire situations. I find a macro of a flower just as "pleasing".

 

What we should consider then, is perhaps a different term than "Aesthetics": How about "Impact"? A macro of a flower could have just as much "impact" on someone as a war documentary. Different impacts, certainly, as one makes one angry, upset, while the other pleases, makes us feel good. But an impact, nonetheless.

 

At any rate, the current system is flawed, as will be anything that may supplant it. We will all have to live with whatever system we have. All we can do is try to interpret the results we get as best we can as individuals and as photographers on whether our work is striking a chord with others. After all, isn't that why we're all here?

 

All the best.

 

- David :)

 

David, for years I gave a crap about the rating system here until I learned how silly it is. I lost the respect of a lot of fellow photographers because of my silly need to be recognized here on p.net. Looking back on it now I find it hard to believe it was me or that I cared. I never whored myself out giving 7's to everyone but I use to delete lower rated images that 'hurt' my average. It's embarrasing to say, but true.

 

Thank god I've done a little growing in the last year or so and now realize that any rating is valid. Shooting studio work is not everyones cup of tea and lots of people just plain don't like it. They will give 3's and 4's no matter how good I think it might be and in their mind it's a valid score so in my mind it would have to be also.

 

Let them give whatever score they want. It doesn't matter as long as the people I truly respect always give me their honest opinion and (most of all) as long as I like it...

 

Dave

I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's exactly what I've been saying ... just in a roundabout sort of way, I guess. In the end, the numbers are purely meaningless, just a scale for each individual. Not everyone likes what we like, and vice versa. I have no problem with someone giving me a 3 if that's what they feel. Hey, it's not their cup of tea. For me, I'm interested in people's comments and feedback, good and bad.

 

I personally put zero stock in individual numbers, but as I said to Peter, who initially raised the concerns, they're good to get a general feel for how people are reacting to your work. BUT DON'T TAKE THEM AS GOSPEL ... EITHER WAY. For every 10 people who like an image, there are 10 who could take it or leave it, 10 who dislike it. It's just a very rough gauge, and I think to people who are unsure about their work, especially newcomers to the art, it can be a devastating experience to get those 3/3's ... even though they really don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

Really, it's the comments that matter ... and of course, in the end, even *that* doesn't. If the photographer is pleased with the work, then the whole point is moot. And it probably is, anyway, as you've so eloquently said.

 

So, Peter, I hope all of this helps. Sorry it took so long ... -David

 

 

 

I like the philosophy encapsulated in David's last paragraph, that one must ultimately be true to one's vision. To simply post images in the hopes that it appeals to some mass audience is somewhat stifling to one's artistic development.

 

in terms of feedback, I think the best one could ever hope for is a constructive critique that one can learn something from, be it good or bad.

...about the rating system David. You make me laugh David; if i had to write about the rating system, i would have done exactly the same way like you do (except i probably have to "borrow" all your wordings ;o)). What amazes me besides your excellent, writing skill is your balanced sense of judgement. What a blessing to have the eyes for photography, the mind to express oneself eloquently and probably the ...ears for ...music :o) (i guess!). You are well admired for your talents and your sense of balance David. Warm regards,

 

tanya

David - you have an incredible imagination for imagery and story-telling! I am completely immersed in the adventures of this little fellow, and anxiously await more from him, and you! (p.s. the fish is priceless!) Regards, T.