davecollopy

Thank you Can and Derek. I had my AE-1 with me as well loaded with Velvia. So I got several 35mm shots here in color. One is in my portfolio. I had my 300mm mounted so the perspective is different. Lots of color in the different geological layers. The tranparencies came out great but the scans were a different story.

Thank you all and thanks for helpful suggestions. Everybody have a safe and happy 3-day weekend!

Thank you, Don. The jpeg compression is a little darker in the midtones than in the print, but this is one of my favorites also.

Let me know what you think and thank you for your time.

Let me know what you think. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Faustus. I reposted this version which simply deals with correcting the damage.

Here's the original scan of the 6x9 negative with the damage. If anyone knows of a better way in PS 5.5 to pull up the info from of the left side of photo I'd sure be interested. My solution was a hack, but I do like the effect.

 

This has been done before. But the ice in this one really makes it exceptional!

This is interesting. The perspective reminds me of Escher.

I really like the sky here. Horizon might be tad off due to cropping.

Good combination of color and simplicity

The more complex the technique, the harder it is to pull off. But experimenting is good.

This is your best picture. IMO.

Technically well executed. This isn't my thing but it's as good as most the stuff on the front page. Since the flow is horizontal think about cropping some of top and bottom.

This is the nicest one in this folder. More going on here.

I think this would have worked better in B&W, lower contrast. Depth of field is good. Also whenever its possible use a tripod. You'd be surprised at the difference. I would have cropped the person to the top right corner, more hopscotch/forground in lower right if you can squeeze it in the DOF.

The mind uses the people to scale the surrounding objects. When the mind determines the people unreliable, then it uses the surrounding objects to scale the people. Because the pulpit, the door rear center, the whole church is so much larger than typical, the people become smaller and smaller and smaller as the church becomes typical. The last time I looked at the pic my mind was telling me they were somewhere around 11".

 

I agree with Sam, it was a editing judgement error.

Its difficult for me to say what kind of staying power photoshopped images will have. Photoshop is relatively new in the whole scheme of things and the photoshopped images that end up having staying power may not have been created yet.

"Would you value the image more if he had figured out a way to use the camera to get the lighting right in a single exposure?"

In this particular case I dont believe thats possible. Also "slapped together" is somewhat of an oversimplification. I dont necessarily believe unmanipulated images are inherently better, but speaking for myself I do agree with you that I derive more personal satisfaction from the quality images I have captured on film than those I have created in Photoshop.

The problem as I see it is this, Carl: People here are rating manipulated images as though they were not manipulated. Both Photoshop and the camera are simply tools. Photoshop has the capability of producing images with more "wow" power as this POW demonstrates but photography in general covers a much wider spectrum of aesthetics. Capturing an image on film or memory card is a completely different process than getting an image from Photoshop.

Concerning the caption: I dont think he made the best choice here either. On his site there is no caption which I think is better. I was taken in at first too. Now Im just trying to be objective and its getting harder and harder to look at this image and keep a straight face.

I think in all fairness to Mr Heller, it should be stated that he never claimed this photo was unmanipulated. On the contrary, he stated it was manipulated, right up front.

 

I think there is atmosphere that exists here that people want to believe that photos which clearly state they are manipulated are not manipulated. This problem is compounded when an image such as this one with several problems is chosen as POW. People are comparing manipulated images to unmanipulated photos and thinking "Wow, I wish I could have gotten that shot" rather than "I wish I had done that in Photoshop." The solution is to seperate the two.

 

Not that it matters since the image is clearly a manipulation but the reason I mentioned the light is because the window should be the same intensity as the one directly above it, or vice versa, same as in every other picture of St Peter's I've ever seen. This would obviously destroy the single shaft of light that makes this picture. I honestly don't think St Peters has windows shades or anyone tall enough to open and close them. But anything is possible. It is possible that the photogragher was lucky enough to happen upon this sight, upper shades drawn, just as we see it here(minus the tiny people, of course). But after visiting Mr Hellers site I don't believe he relies on luck to produce good images. Here's the advise he gives:

 

"You just want your photos to come out like those you see in a book, or on the internet, or on a computer screen. The thing to realize is that those photos didn't just pop out of the camera like that. "Post-processing" after an image was taken may have made it look different than how it was shot on film.You may need to alter your perceptions about what you can accomplish if you were to attempt the exact same shot. Manipulating images is not inherently a "bad" thing."

 

Actually he has a lot to say on digital manipulation and he does the PS thing very well, well most of the time. By far this isn't his best work, but I do like the shaft here. It's well done. The only thing I would change in this picture is: lose the upper window, lose the podium, lose the ghosts and scale the floor tiles to the people. Then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

I see now the window and light were added in Photoshop as well.

 

This is a nice example of graphic art, but in my opinion there are many better photographs on this site much more deserving of this honor. I think someone is toying with us here.