syd

Gordon,

When in Rome ... but I realize I just don't particularly like Rome and the bounds of my own hypocrisy only stretch so far. The reason I left the comments I did were because I felt I wasn't looking at photographs at all, but rather photoshop art ... if they were the non rendered photographs, rather than heavily altered images, I would not have joined the discussions at all. I thought this was Photo.net ... not Heavily Digitally Altered Images. net. But this is now off topic from my original message on this thread. I won't be drawn any further ... go take some photographs.

 

Here I go again, kicking against the pricks ...

It never ceases to amaze me how often an artistic work falls like pearls before swine. This is a fantastic image and it deserves recognition for the finely captured moment that it is. On the subject of peer critiques of the work of other artists and photographers, I feel it to be an entirely wasteful and fruitless exercise, which in this case I am sadly reminded of, as I revisit the many photo forums online after a long hiatus away. I now realize why I stayed away for so long, because it is this culture of glib arm chair critique/rating systems that I find completely distasteful. The problem with photography is that anybody with an index finger and an eye always thinks they can do it better ... or that the photographer, who's image they are pulling apart, could have done a better job with the scene if only ...

Any photographer worth their salt has done their homework and has done all they can to get the very best out of a scene before they trip the shutter ... this second guessing and proffering suggestions of how it could be improved 5000 miles after the fact is glib at best. Without being at the location it is impossible to know the constraints placed upon the photographer - weather, obstacles, changing light et al - it frankly amazes me that we dare second guess the work of another artist when we had absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the limitations or circumstances that surrounded the creating of that work. I make no apologies about my statements about all this ... it has long infuriated me.

The other problem with photography and forums is the fact that everybody with an index finger and an eye thinks they are a (P)hotographer - the so-called online peer group veers wildly from hacks to real photographic artists; mediocrity rules. I have seen dozens of superb images over the years languishing completely bereft of comments or peer rating while in their place great swathes of visual mediocrity are poured over like silks in a Bazaar. Since when do random members of online communities have a monopoly on what stands for great art anyway? Then there comes the image fatigue and cynicism towards particular types of compositional elements in genre's of photography like Landscape - all of a sudden superb and arresting images are deemed cliches! It is ironic to me that I could take the image above onto the street at lunch time and ask a group of passers by what they thought. I know for a fact that 99% of those people would say Kah Kit Yoongs photograph was stunning ... amazing ... wonderful. People on the street do not suffer from the cynicism and image fatigue that seems to accompany photo fora; they won't be pointing out issues with the lighting and the softness of some part of the foreground in this shot either ... nor will they be suggesting that if he'd only popped a bit of fill flash in there, he really might of had something. No ... they see what is there in front of them ... a splendid, stunning bit of nature in our world, captured by a (P)hotographer.

At the end of the day, the image is presented as a completed work - you either like it or not. Deep analysis of what one finds wrong with it, after the fact, is to me an incredible exercise in futility as well as an incredible presumption on the part of the critic - what has been achieved, what does it change? Get out there and take a better one then! My final message to Kah Kit Yoong is this; the only ratings and critiques that matter come from your clients mate ... not your so called peers online. The people who buy your work have the only opinions worth trusting. I for one think your images are superb.

Best regards, Simon.

 

This is a beautiful image that has all the things I love about classic photography ... mood, depth, atmosphere, contrast and light ... and most importantly a sense of wonder and mystery. As a self confessed man of the past born into the wrong era, this image hits me where I live. Something else that is impressive is that obvious planning and thought have gone into the creating of this image ... pre-visualization is key here. To make great photographs, it helps to first have a great imagination.

Best, Simon.

I completely agree with Davids analysis ... it is exactly what I was stating myself though I baulked at further exposition of the subject knowing that the results may lead to further debate mired in futility. David made those very same points in a cogent and sober manner ... as I said myself ... there is photography and then photographic art - the thing and the thing altered. Nobody is suggesting you can't be an artist AND a photographer at the same time, but it must be understood that while the person might be both, there is a point where the work is not both but rather two separate things. This is achieved by way of a transformation of the work, in process. To me, the image we are looking at started out as a photograph and has now been transformed into graphic art or something more akin to poster art - it is no longer a photograph but rather an image. Thank you David for pursuing the topic in the manner you did - it saved me a lot of typing.

Best regards, Simon.

 

David is actually saying the same thing I was saying ... photography vs photography art - you have the thing itself and then the thing altered. It's a pretty simple concept that I see many here already comprehend.

Best, Simon.

John,

There really isn't any need for concern. Any lines drawn in the sand are my own and I stand by them - sometimes the medium of internet discussion is entirely inadequate with regard to getting across the complexities and nuance within a reasoned argument. I am not negating the methods of various photographic techniques arbitrarily but rather asserting the same thing that the majority of people here are asserting, but with my own spin on the theme ... namely the image is over processed. You either like the result or not ... the reasons why are largely a red herring. If you ever make it to my porch, I'll shout you a few beers and we can take our time discussing the deeper issue of what I define as photography vs photographic art and why I see them as different animals.

Best, Simon.

G'day John,

I don't disagree with your comments but I still hold to the view that there are different ends of the photographic scale that demarcate themselves between realism and alt process/art. Photographs that get heavy treatment through artistic processes cease to exist in the realm of mainstream photographic normalcy and instead move into a different category for me. That they started out as a photographic capture is undeniable, and technically they are photographic in spirit; but when a photographic image ceases to identifiably reflect the real world of the everyday, then it has taken a detour down a different branch of the photographic Arts and no longer can be strictly termed a photograph. It may be an issue of mindset, but when I look at POW, I am looking for photo realism rather than surrealism because these represent different ends of the photo spectrum from where I stand and ought to be appreciated as distinctly different entities.

Bottom line, I think most people still think of a photograph as something that reflects reality ... at the very least an identifiable reality in which they also exist. HDR and other 'effects' do not reflect any reality I have ever known, with or without substance abuse to kick it along. And I think this is where we get to the meat of the matter ... we are dealing with 'effects' here rather than pure photography. Did I say 'pure photography'? Oops ... I've done it now. ;-)

Best, Simon.

This is not to criticize the photographer, but I must critique the image ... I say image because I can't call this a photograph since it exists more as poster art, graphic art or something in the realm of cartoons, than what I identify as photography. This is what I am lately come to calling "Photoshopography" - if that is the aim then great, but would it not be best to have a completely different section for these types of images in order to discern between photography and graphic art? Rhetorical of course ... some might argue that photography has always stretched the boundaries of image creation through artistic and alternative processes, but for me this looks less and less like the real world than anything Man Ray ever did.

Best, Simon.

I've got computer games that have screen shots just like this ... nothing here looks real. I just don't get where Digital photography is taking us - somewhere not real, that's for sure.

I totally agree with the above poster Michael about the lack of reality in this image ... HDR looks like Manga cartoons, this is not photography .... this is photo-shop-ography. If this is what modern photography has come to then I'm out - sorry. How the editors pick this stuff is beyond me but it does a disservice in my view. If it has been picked to incite discussion then they succeeded here only.

 

Simon.

Subjective I know but I'm less than impressed ... the image is crooked and noisy for my taste and the wake just looks very digitized and unnatural.

Great shot my friend. You have all the elements working here and I particularly like the stretched shadows from the brush in the foreground. I would love to see this same location shot at some different times of day also... early morning and early evening. Excellent work!

 

Best, Simon

Top marks for a fellow RB user... great shot!

Man this reminds me of Bali... great use of critical dof and just a wonderful honest moment from the street. "You buy, you buy!" ...*L*

I'm going to guess that this is a projection that has been re-photographed, or... this was shot by placing the image underneath a clear bowl of water then re shot, or... this was shot in the darkroom in the bottom of a development tray. Plenty of ways to skin this cat, or... it's been digitized.

 

Simon

Don't be shy, you need to scan this at 300 dpi, 150 dpi output with 50% magnification, I'll be more than happy to give you a rating then, this looks like a really nice shot.

Comments are slim pickins these days Terry, even for great shots like this one. Well worth the wait I'd say, well done!

This is very strong, would have been great though to have the dark lone figure just off center in the distant left. And may I suggest cropping in from the left to remove the distracting bright gap with branches which add nothing to the end product.

Brad,

This is more like it, though for my money you need to take about 40% off the sky from between the sky and the railing. We get the idea that things are moody and blue from whats already behind the railing. Don't give up now!

This is a tough image to create well whether using film or digital. I am going to assume that the warm light source on the bench is some kind of

sodium deal along the boardwalk? I like the colours in the image but it might be worthwhile playing with a crop or two to get a feel for what works best.

 

The way I see it, since the railing is in the way and is basically blocking the ocean behind it then your main focus here is the bench and perhaps the railing itself. You might want to crop the sky down a little and bring a more panoramic vibe to this image. This may make it stronger compositionally, play with it a little and see what works and where it takes you. Bottom line is there is no right or wrong only what aesthetically pleases one person compared to another. If 50 people don't like my photo's it matter's not, the main thing is if I like them and am achieving my own goals.

I totally apreciate the light and the tone of this shot but it looks like she's saying, "oh man I've got a headache" or... "for gods sake will he quit playing with the tripod". Maybe she could have had a less world weary look on her face. Lovely tones however.

Great shot Paul, I was born in Brizzy and was back visiting family there late last year. You don't see many night shots of the river and this is the best one I've seen in a long time, well done!

 

BTW, were you shooting from a business or residential building?

Pointing Bone...

My kind of shot Michael, I took something very similar to this in a completely different landscape a couple of years ago. Don't worry about the shadow in the foreground, some may complain, I like it allot as it adds a nice contrast to the earthy tones in the distance. If I find that shot I'll come back and post it for your perusal...

 

Best, Simon

I envy some of your locations Bryce, wow! Now to business, we must see about getting your images scanned at 150 dpi, output res 300 dpi at 50% magnification. There's so much more going on at this size and your short changing your work at this small size.

 

To the image - unfortunately this is after the fact but you had difficult lighting for the above shot. Might I suggest that in future you carry a 1 or 2 stop graduated neutral density filter so you might better even out the contrasty sky, which has unfortunately in this case blown out quite a bit to nearly unacceptable limits.

 

I really like your folder, lets get it resized.