marshall

p.s. I'm not meaning "jaded" as a criticism. (Maybe not the best choice of words, but hopefully it comes across right.)

I suspect that the alterations to the image were made to make it more exciting, to bring out the colors, not expressly to make it more "unreal", but that's beside the point. I'm certainly not questioning anyone's right to dislike the image because of assumptions about how manipulated it is. Photography is a big art form, and this[manipulation] certainly fits inside it. That's my opinion.

As for the rest, I happen to like the image. The oranges may be a little too strong, but the overall image is visually exciting and a nicely impressionistic treatment. (Full disclosure: I've shot with David, but I wouldn't defend him (no one's attacking him personally anyway) or say I liked the image if I didn't.) I haven't been jaded by how "common" it is the way some others have, but we all have different exposures and tolerances.

I'm pretty sure that the original raw file, viewed at default settings, is milder in contrast and color. But the impressionism here is from purely photographic means - slow shutter speeds, solid technique, great light

Beautiful shot, but kicked too hard in post-processing. The oversaturated sky reds really stick out. With a little rework, really nice, though.

If you don't have evidence that Mert saw your pictures and got the idea from them, then you're quite off base, I'm afraid. In any event, you cannot copyright an idea; you have to copyright the expression of the idea. In this case, the images are pretty different. Also, I've bet that a good search would turn up a number of other such images out there in the world.

 

My suggestion is to continue with your shooting, since you're producing interesting work, and focus on that.

 

Sorry to muck up your fine photograph with this, Mert.

I won't try to add to the overall erudition of this thread, or try to match the word count of some previous posters. One quick thought about the centered-ness of this composition, though:

I find that the near-centering of the shark works here for a couple reasons. First, the swoop of the smaller fish is visually nice. Second, it's a shark. For most of us, a shark is a cynosural force - it demands our attention. It takes "center stage", if you will. So, while another composition might well be effective also, to me this one matches a certain feeling that the experience could offer. Onward.

Bob - Care to expand? Don't like the subject matter? Feel like you need to see more of the face to engage? Anything in particular? You seem to have a pattern of very brief comments; I certainly accept your opinion as inherently valid, but it's hard for me to learn from presented like that.

I like the picture and think it is generally good, but agree that it doesn't stand out from a number of other Wave shots.

This is an interesting image that offers many elements for discussion. Ultimately, its success is at the immediate eye-candy stage. In other words, its rich colors with their blue/orange contrast and the simplicity of design make it immediately eye-catching and subjectively pleasing.

 

It doesn't reward long viewing or study (in my opinion), because it falls apart in a few ways. Most notably, the rather ethereal sense created by the smooth water is an unreality reinforced by the failure of the kayak wake to integrate naturally with the river. That doesn't necessarily mean that the image fails - I think at a certain commercial level the image is quite successful. Rather, it is a mismatch of the image to the context in which it is presented. I would, nonetheless, be even more impressed with a version that had a more natural integration of the wake.

 

Color is very subjective. To my eye, these colors are incredibly rich, unlikely perhaps, but I don't know that I'd call them garish. It's a reasonable description even if it doesn't quite strike me that way. Well, maybe the sky is a little garish. Either way, those colors have to be pretty challenging to print.

 

I don't want to continue the comparison's to Ansel Adams' style of manipulation, other than to say that it's a miss. Adams images aren't "true" representations of nature, but they don't come from montage, and there is a meaningful difference. We know this is a manipulated, created image, filled with modified color, and its unreality is both greater and different than an intensified, dodged & burned black & white picture.

 

I can accept and enjoy created realities as long as they are offered without deception. I have some concerns about the idealized outdoor imagery having a long-term impact on people's ability and interest in appreciating real outdoor experiences, but that's an unfair issue to lay on any particular image. Even if that means I'd prefer a probably less spectactular image that was captured as a "real" moment, I think this image has merit.

 

Onward.

Thanks, Lannie. It was stitched with PT Tools/PTAssembler. For what it's worth, the stitching doesn't quite hold up to close scrutiny, because there were some major problems lining up the files (hypoxia-induced zoom and exposure problems on one of the files). Also, with large areas of low detail (like the sky) in the frame, it's hard to get enough control points all the way up for the software to do the job cleanly. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time in PS re-creating 1/3 of the sky to deal with the exposure problems and mis-alignment.

 

I seriously recommend the climb, for what it's worth. It's a great trip. Onward.

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.

Great combination of geometric composition and twisted perception (the blurring). The eye-candy blues make it even more enjoyable. Really nice work. Enjoy.

This image has a strong graphic in the radiant beams and their reflections, truly intense color, and evokes a strong sense of place. Minor compositional nits, sure, but pleasing eye-candy worth seeing. Onward.

I must admit that I don't really know what causes the golden band. It could easily just be a haze effect, I suppose, but I'm going to have to investigate. I took the images with the wide end of a 28-75 lens (should'a switched to the 24, but lens changes weren't happening where I was halfway up the Great Western Breach wall). This is three images stitched horizontally. The curve to the horizon is just a result of the very wide angle of view and the 19,000-foot viewpoint. The poorly-hidden secret (need to improve my PS technique) is that some of the sky on one side has been replicated to the other side because in my hypoxic state I inadvertently switched an exposure setting in between two of the frames. Oops...

I have nothing against flights of fancy. They're just as valid a use of photography as anything else. In looking at a fanciful, manipulated image, however, one should probably not be distracted by the manipulation itself. Here, to my eye, the repeated boats are a serious distraction, in one step costing the image much of the effect it might have had if a viewer only looked for the 10th of a second necessary to get hold of its ethereal mood.

 

Is it terrible in concept? No, not really. It doesn't pretend to be a foggy sea scene as effectively as it pretends to be boats floating in clouds, and that won't work for every viewer. Most fantasy is like that.

 

In the end, and again, this is just my opinion, this offers a sense of (created) place and mood, and as part of a moving set of images setting up a scene, it could be effective. As a still image that gets longer inspection, it offers less and is ultimately unsatisfying. Onward.

Not quite the Nike logo, but that's a good thing from a copyright-in-the-way-of-stock-options kind of approach.

 

I think I'm in agreement with Tony that it's not worth really arguing over the bokeh in this shot. But I did play with a lens blur filter (the selection mask is pretty easy here) and actually did like it a little better slightly softened in the background. Digging pretty deep here, but for whatever it might be worth...

 

I quite like the original shot. Onward.

The people who are saying that we should treat this not as travel photography, but as environmental portraiture, seem to me to be exactly right. Images should be viewed for what they are at least as much as what they are not. [Thus, my previous comment was poorly done.]

 

That said, let's think about what the photographer was doing here. I don't immediately recognize, by looking at the image, that it is partly Egypt and partly Morrocco. I can imagine, though, in context of a number of such juxtapositions, that a statement could be made and themes of cross-border connections explored. That is interesting. Is that the photographer's aim? I don't know. But it might well be worth the effort. Simply as an attempt to create a successful picture, the combination of elements is probably less intellectually interesting, but a fun exercize anyway.

 

If the photographer were offering this as journalism, then surely he should be condemned for attempting to trick people, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, so we shouldn't judge him harshly. I can understand why people would want to be told, of course. Ah, well. Onward.

Hm. I think I'm disappointed to know this is a montage instead of a more photojournalistic travel image. It's a wonderful shape, and I'm not against montages, but something doesn't strike me as quite right about it being raised up as "travel" imagery. Onward.

I think that past "winners" of POW would argue that being selected for that dubious honor is surely not "winning". The elves just mean for it to be an image worthy of discussion. People used to call it "Prisoner of the Week" exactly because there will usually be a diversity of opinions, and I expect that this week will see such a diversity. Also, I'm not aware of the elves ever responding to questions about the selection process.

 

I like this image. As for whether it's art, I don't know. Based on Scott's definition, perhaps not, but then again, some of what people think of as "fine art" is really just pretty pictures, right? This image is an interesting layout and well-controlled lighting. But there is something more to the composition than just technique, to my eye. There is a flow and a feel to it that I'm not sure I could really decribe in terms that aren't totally subjective. Would I hang it on my walls? Probably not, because I don't need to look for a really long time to get out of it what I get out of it, but I do think it's interesting to look at for a little while.

 

Onward.

The wild color of the background really grabs the eye (as it does in others of your shots). Here, the selective b&w trick seems gimmicky to me; I'd like to see the version with him in color, which I'm guessing that I'd prefer. The character in the face and the setting can make for an effective portrait, though. Enjoy.

Maggie, thanks for the thoughts and the comment about the details. That is strange, but I've updated it now...

Another well-composed use of the panoramic frame. I like the placement of elements and the way you've used the graceful swoop of the hillside to move us through the image. My eye keeps looking for one element to have a little more definition, which would provide more depth to the image, but it provides a good sense of place nonetheless. Enjoy.

Good use of the panoramic format. I like the way the windmills stand out from that excellent sky. Actually, to my eye, the sky interest is very good here, and is perhaps given too little of the frame, but that could just be me. Enjoy.

My favorite of your posted images, this combines wonderful depth of color with the sense of physical depth in the water. Though it doesn't focus on "standard" compositional strong spots, it is wonderfully balanced while retaining a dynamism borne of the angle of view and strong leading curve. I'm not quite sure about the fade-to-white at the top, but the overall effect of this shot is excellent. Enjoy.

Yeah, sharpening is a tricky art form. One thought, which I have used with a few of my slot canyon shots: it seems (and maybe this is just me) that the amount of sharpening that best brings out the detail in the rock can be too much along the edges. So what I've done is to sharpen the a copy of the whole image on a new layer to the amount that I like for the rock walls, and then use a Layer Mask to reduce the effect a little along the edges. Not sure if you find that useful, but thought I'd throw it out there. Enjoy.