mona_chrome

I don't know why you have this in your portfolio, you have so many nice photos there.

 

The problem is this one just blows them all away! Very nice.

 

Seriously, I do think this is maybe the best piece in your portfolio, but I do have a suggestion. Have you thought of segregating your black and white from your color. I do think they fight each other as I went through you work. Especially since your color is so intense. I think you could strengthen the overall feel of your work this way. Obviously, the work is nice either way, but it might be presented to be even stronger.

I think there is a bit of the conversation missing here in terms of decisive moments and

decisions made about exposure.

 

Daniel made certain decisions, and in my opinion good ones, when he made this

exposure. These decisions were made for a result on his media, transparency film. If we

instead shoot negative film, or possibly digital(I don't shoot digital seriously), we may

make exposure decisions that give us lattitude in the darkroom or on the computer later.

We may visualize the same result, but exploit the characteristics of our media and our

ability to do post work. This way of working is just as valid as any other and involves just

as much knowledge of exposure etc. It is it's own decisive moment.

 

There is a lot of "saving" in post, but, just as Daniel has done here, informed decisions

made to meet ones working method and media, should be the goal we strive to achieve.

There is just someting about this current discussion that wont let me not comment.

 

First, the discussion about the plight of digital manipulation or the use of photoshop here

should be coined as the "misuse" of these things. PS is a tool. The problems described in

its use are largely the result of a beginner trying something, someone with limited visual

sophistication or the result of someone "trying" something new. Not the inherent problem

with the use of the software's features.

 

Second, to even state that a camera captures reality is a bit presumptuous. The films we

choose are chosen because of the way they translate reality that pleases us(or at least

comes closest). Digital cameras have their own issues. Can we really claim that all of

these manufacturers know, and can replicate, the reality we see?

 

The image here is a manipulation even in how it was described as made--as are all

photographs. Possibly it reflects the film as it was, but it was exposed for a result. The

eye would see more detail in the shadows than even film would that was not

underexposed and should someone make a different decision, use HDR to get the detail,

who is to say it could not be even a better photo of this scene.

 

My point is that Daniel made some decisions that "manipulated" this scene's reality to what

we are looking at. Obviously that is what he should do, but let's not trash the use of PS or

other tools--Just as with bad photos, it is not the fault of the tools used, responsibility lies

solely with the creator of the image.

A couple of comments have come up here that I thought were interesting. First, I am

going to post my suggested cropping for reference.

 

I think Mary did make a point that I felt worked with the crop, but not so much as is. The

bright column, upper right does balance the bright robes lower left for me when cropped.

It creates a nice diagonal pull of the eye across the image with the mystery unfolding in

the space between. Without the crop, I feel that the imbalance remains and it is difficult

for the column to hold up against the lower left edge.

 

As to leaving room for a magazine masthead or for a designer, that is great, as long as

you aren't the photographer who has to do it!?! Anyway, those stories can be for another

time, but there is a point being lost here, this is not a magazine, brochure or ad. This

image was posted as a standalone. If I have to give an art director or designer space, it

doesn't mean that I will present the photo in my portfolio with the extraneous space, if it

weakens the photo. Here, I think it does and as a presentation piece would eliminate it if

it were mine. But as Daniel says, it is subjective and he likes it.

I have to admit that, from the thumbnail, I was afraid this was going to be a theatrical

photo, not a true situation. Seeing the larger version, I think it looks pretty real. For me,

it is a very nice moment. Light, mood, subject, all work together to make a nice photo.

 

Basically, I think this photo works very well, but I do have a couple of comments for

consideration.

 

First, I found myself being pulled, uncomfortably, to the bottom of the photo. I couldn't

put my finger on it. I think Willie made comment about the brighter light down there and

that may be part of it, but I also think it might be a little crowded there. Just a bit tight, a

little more breathing room would have been good I think.

 

Second, on the other side, in every meaning, I think the photo might suffer from too much

room at the top. The top of the photo seems to become a bit unbalanced and starts to fall

apart. Willie didn't mention this, and I rarely feel a shave is in order, but here, I think the

photographer got enamored with the beautiful detail in the stone. We all do it, we want to

leave all those cool details, but here, for me, I think cutting down a bit would really bring

the focus of the photo and mood back into harmony. The monk and the column would be

in balance and working well together. I wont post a crop, but now the larger version is

1252 pixels tall, my thought would be to bring it down to about 1046, or about 16%. With

the whole column in the shot, I think it takes a lot away from the meaning of the photo

and the detail could well be its "own" photo.

 

Overall, this is a pleasing photo and a nice moment caught.

I thnk this is nicely done for the most part. The colors are very nice and strong, but subtle at the same time.

 

I generally am against telling someone to crop, but here I don't think my recommendation will change the photos meaning. I would consider cropping down a bit from the top, to get rid of the little intrusion on the dome. I can't put my finger on it, but having a bit of the dome cut off does seem to balance the image a bit. I also would cut a small bit on the right to reduce the dark of the upper right.

 

I will attach what I did for your consideration.

 

Nice image in any case.

I think Anthony hit it when he said this is just too clean. You are presenting a "dark" scenario here and yet there is no richness to the wardrobe or set. Everything is too polished and new and sterile. These are the kind of details that makes a photo become more than an exercise.

Essentially a nice photo, but I do have to comment on a couple of things that I have

mentioned before on POW photos. This is the tangencies that, in my opinion, can

adversely affect a photo. First, it is the beam riding on the woman's head. It is not that

the beam is there, it is just that it has been brought to the foreground by the tangency and

starts to feel like it is pinning her in place. Second, when I first looked at this I thought a

woman was knocking on a window beam--the kind of illusion you see with people

pretending to hold up the leaning tower of Pisa. Both of these tangencies bring the

background foreward and affect the reading of the photo, making it a bit more

claustrophobic than airy as it might have been otherwise.

 

I think an interesting series could be made of such tangencies, but as a single photo, it

can suffer. That said, sometimes a quick response to a moment results in these sorts of

things and we just have to decide for ourselves if what was captured is worth the

distraction--essentially, if/since I could go back there and rephotograph this, would I

want/be happy with this result?

I went to Paul's site and visited the surreal category and a few others. Overall, Paul has some

beautiful work. Unfortunately, a lot of the surreal work suffers from the comment I made

earlier, just overdone on the effect. Some do work, but the folder became very monotanous,

whereas his straight work did not.

When we photograph, we experience many things other than the visual. The atmosphere,

the smells, our personal state of mind etc. Hopefully, all of these things influence the way

we approach our subject and then, in post-we used to call it the darkroom--you try to

capture not just what you saw, but what you felt. Sometimes it is just shifts in color, or

densities or b/w conversions or dodging and burning or whatever. I have no problem with

Paul's decision to change the perspective of the image to meet his vision, that is a tool we

all have and should explore to understand how it might be effectively used, my issue was

only the title presentation.

 

As to the image, I think Richard Watts pointed to several areas where the manipulation

probably enhances the features and are quite pleasing as to the result. But there are other

areas, especially the top of the dunes, that are just way overdone, IMO. Maybe if these

weren't so exaggerated, and the title wasn't an issue, the image would be more universally

accepted here. As it is, it seems the result seen so many times when someone discovers a

photoshop effect for the first time--everything is overdone and, altho it has some

immediate draw, like so many overdone red filtered b/w landscapes, it has no legs.

 

So my final thought is just that this effect has been overdone to the detriment of the final

image's ability to convey a message effectively. I also feel, as alluded to earlier, that there

could be some post processing in the treatment of the tones, contrast, etc that could have

made this a more rich photo. I will go look at Paul's website to see his other work.

When I first looked at this I thought it was a cleverly done montage of different

mathematical

curves from a graphing calculator. It looked very plastic(as in unreal) and reminded me of

the landscapes manufactured by a photographer in the LA area back in the early 80's--he

used paper and the results were actually a bit more believable.

 

The discussion regarding being duped or whatever is not an issue for me regarding the

visual here, except I think Paul made it one by his title. The title implies that this is a real

place, IMO, and that is the only thing that bothers me on an artistic or ethical level. If we

are going to call something by its name(Namibia Desert along with Wind Cathedral), then it

should be what we are calling it or include some word that gives a hint that it is an

interpretation. Alternatively, just give it some non-specific title-like "Wind Cathedral" with

no attribution to the Namibia Desert.

 

As to the image, I wish as much work went into making this a richer image as went into

altering it's physical characteristics.

I have been admiring this shot most of the week, but have had no time to comment. A

couple of things have struck me about it.

 

First, I see an awful lot of near/far landscapes posted here and rarely do they make any

sense. Rather, they just seem to be "oh, here is a cool thing in the foreground and

something else in the background" instead of relationships that make some sense. Here,

sense is made very well. I would agree that the foreground is a bit too much, which is

amplified by the some of the rocks detail. The foreground does become a bit more the

subject rather than a support to the main subject, as I read this.

 

Second, I really find, with photoshop and all of its great tools, that filters are not needed

except in very rare cases. The reason for my saying this is evident in the discussions here.

Polarizers create uneven skies and ND graduates generally create effects in areas we don't

want or need them. My sense, from this scene, is that there was no need for either filter

here to capture the scene in raw mode. Some strengthening of the sky could easily have

been done in post without the artificial feel. But that said, there is nothing awful here and

a little retouching, if desired, could easily adjust for most of the effects that seem to be

causing problems for many.

 

So, for me, I find this photo essentially very pleasing. The use of the shoreline and rocks

to draw one to the rock castle workes very well. The light is nice and the sky detail is nice.

 

(Actually, with reference to the sky, and I think it has been said that it is real, I do keep

looking at it and it seems the light is coming from the opposite direction on sky and

land--interesting!)

To me cropping of others photos is such a precarious undertaking and I think it needs to

be done with an awful lot of thought to what is intended and maybe a bit more knowledge

of what the intent of the photo is. With some photos, cropping may not change meaning,

but here all of the crops, first or second attempts, keep changing the meaning and spirit

of the photo as presented. From my perspective, there might have been a better framing

on site, but I don't see a better crop. Again, I understand where the croppers are coming

from and Marius may even like some of them better himself. But for me the xtra room at

the left allows for the mind to fill in that there are probably more meters out there where

the tighter crops tend to "limit" that feel. Limiting the feeling of more also minimizes the

impact of the photo as I interpret it. The two tighter crops make the photo about the little

boy, which is a totally different animal than the photo presented. It may be a better photo

to some, but it is not Marius' photo.

When I first saw this image, I was struck by a few different reactions. Looking at Marius'

other work, albeit limited, I had a different appreciation for this and maybe see it as maybe

a sketch for something to come.

 

Marius portfolio shows his interest in pattern and odd little things out in life, sans the light

bulb. I think Marc made a good point that this photo is not all that unique, but it is not

bad and is an interesting concept. I don't think there is one message to be drawn here,

but many as proven in the comments. For me, I was maybe more thinking the poverty

thing at first, but I think I ended up more in Julie's camp, thinking about how maybe the

mechanical, or "life support", seems to have gotten more attention than the human.

 

As to technical issues, I don't know that a crop is in order, but I really think the tight crop

makes the photo something totally different. Not being there, I don't know if there could

have been a bit better composition, but the current composition, altho alright, is probably

the thing that will contribute to this not jumping up a notch or two in overall quality.

Sometimes that is just what we have to live with, this is nice, but it doesn't reach out and

grab me.

 

Another issue I have here, and it is probably totally personal taste, is that I think the

"print" is a little weak/soft. Overall and also the boy seems to be "foggy". I don't think I

saw this treatment in any of the other portfolio shots, so maybe it is just an upload loss or

and oversight--then again, maybe intentional. I am posting a little tweak I did here on my

laptop--very quickly--just to indicate how I might see it moved.

 

Bottom line, this is a nice photo, but maybe not great, but as I look at Marius' work I am so

far impressed with how he sees and look forward to what may follow. (When I have time I

will go look at his personal web site)

Wow, what can I say? I have read several comments here, as well as many before it was a

POW and all I can say is wow! That and I don't get it--

 

This photograph is extremely sharp and full of detail, but for me that is it. It just sits

there and tells me nothing, doesn't invite me in and leaves me just looking at a frozen tree

in a frozen landscape. The composition is very static and so there is no dynamic draw. A

sense of serenity might be felt, but I think that could be more complete without the tree--

In fact, I think the image would be much more interesting than it is without any of the

foreground.

 

For me, this is just too much of a great example of going into the landscape and taking a

photograph that means and says nothing. I have looked and seen a place at a given time,

but that is all. I think as landscape photographers we need to do more than that or

landscape photography will fully deserve the blase' treatment it is increasingly getting in

the art world.

 

Sorry for the harsh words, but don't just show us what you think is cool, go out and show

us what

you feel.

Katja,

 

I read your comment above and I don't feel that you have gone too far. I am very sensitive to the line of overdoing digital alterations but this remains very photographic.

 

I also looked at a lot of your work and you are very talented. I have been a professional photographer for 16 years and photographing for 30. Never went to photo school. So reading your bio, don't sweat the formal education thing, you are very good and I think all you need to do is let people know you are out there and I think you will be very busy at your new career as an illustrator! Good luck!

I think you have done well with your composition and basic treatment, however, I am not sure you really needed to dodge/lighten the tree so much. I understand the thinking, but I actually think even a black tree would have been strong in the photo.(maybe lighten the trunk a little as you have, but very selectively) As it is now, the tree has lost a lot of its body (looks unnatural) and the halo starts to distract.

 

You also might consider a little burning in the lower corners and bottom. The warm, light grasses tend to pull the eye and a subtle burn/vignette would really help contain the eye in the frame. I am speaking to a very subtle effect.

 

I do like the compostion and elements of the shot tho and think a little more tweaking would yield a wonderful shot. I hope these comments will be helpful.

I really haven't had the time to read the comments here, so I hope I don't repeat too much.

 

First, this photo is very nicely done. The colors are rich, the design is nice and it appears

technically well done. As I normally try to do, I did go through the folder that this photo

comes from and I think I really find 3 types of photos there. The reason I mention this is

to clarify my next comment on this photo.

 

This photo comes across to me as a commercial illustration. Not much depth or richness

to its meaning, but beautifully done and very "clean". The folder contains several that I

think fall into this

category. But I don't believe the 3 styles really support each other as a cohesive body of

work. The other two types of photos I see there are documentary and conceptual. For

myself, I prefer the more conceptual as a rule. But I really think all are well done, but I do

think that as a body of work, the strength of this work would be highlighted more

effectively if each was curated into its own folder, or possibly subfolder of the overall

carnival theme. In this way the viewer is allowed to go more deeply into each photo in the

series rather than having to shift gears as they go from photo to photo.

 

Very nice work overall.

With a little time to kill, I thought I would see what was on the POW. Essentially, I have been

reading a lot of "great" comments here, but I do have to admit that I am left a little cold by

the image. It feels very mechanical to me, almost too sterile. The tonality is cold, the details

"soooo sharp", it just all feels too, too cold and too too mechanical.

 

There is a consistency in the folder of these shots, but I do wonder if there wouldn't be a

better treatment of these that would give them more depth and warmth and thus more "curb"

appeal. For now, they feel like scientific studies, well done and composed, but I can't get any

further into this or the rest of them. Just too sterile.

When I first saw this back in April, I was taken by its power. Over time, sometimes we lose

that initial hit, but I must say that I still find this an incredibly powerful image. We have

been given a contemplative image and we must decide what to do with it.

 

The texture of this image is not unlike one of the old gum processes or a carbon or carbro

print that has been hand tinted. The textures harkin to these primitive "wet" processes

and handmade papers and so I really do see this as an interpretation of what was there,

not a photoshop trick. There is a line out there, but I don't think this has gone over it.

 

For me, I love naturally beautiful, straight photos, but I also love uses of the medium that

allow us to go further in our expression of our concerns and aesthetics. Even if this was a

backdrop, it would not matter to me, the effect is complete (see the work of Loretta Lux

for beautiful backdrop landscape/portrait work). I don't see decorator edges or an

attempt to make a photo something else, just the application of techniques to enhance the

intended mood.

 

The footprints might be the biggest area of contention for me, I like them on many levels,

and I do think that Julie put the words to what these represent and, let's face it, they are

pretty real!

Hey Roy, yes, this is a very good photograph. It is unique and wonderful scene and not everyone would see it or get it on film/sensor!?! I really like the colors and your treatment.

 

I noticed that you are new to PN and might suggest that you not post such large photos--the large version. The size you posted is such that an unscrupulous person could download and use the photo. I don't post, so I don't know what size most post, but if I did, I think I would only make it big enough to fit on the pages here.

 

But since you gave me such a big file, I did notice what looks like glows around several areas here. Like oversharpening, but it doesn't look oversharpened otherwise, or maybe the use of shadows/highlights. Just something to watch, but this is a very nice image.

Looking at the original is like a bit of fresh air here. I commend Simon for first of all trying

something that appears to have been different for him and now, to be so kind to give us

the original.

 

The original is so much more a complete photo. Like the POW, i don't think one can fault

the "good eye" here to make sense of and design a beautiful photo. The loss of color,

cooling, of the middle ridge now makes sense in context and the image still remains a

strong graphic, but becomes a bit more. What is the old saying, "Damned if you do,

Damned if you don't" I started out here saying, before really questioning the authenticity

of the POW, that we had at least a unique presentation of an old subject, but seeing the

original, that statement does not so much apply. Dunes are so difficult to bring to us

fresh, but I do think this, the original, is a beautiful photo. Of course, the fight in my own

head is can I get beyond how much it looks like other dune shots. But I do feel the orignal

does give me an opportunity to go somewhere. The strong pattern in front, the soft roll

off and the light dark patterns give me something to contemplate even if it were only the

contrasts of texture and light, but I think there is even more.

 

Maybe, as we move forward in this discussion, we can remember we probably wouldn't

be having it here if Simon wasn't adventurous enough to take a risk and try something

different and to try and present a beautiful, but tired, subject in a new way. Thank you for

that Simon and congratulations.

I have thorougly enjoyed the discussion here about manipulation. There are a lot of good

points being made, but I am somewhat getting the impression that there are two camps,

the purists and the progressives, no judgement being made in the categories. I find

myself in both camps over different issues.

 

When I first saw this photo, I had no sense, as I said at the beginning, of the sense of

natural wonder or place or anything of that ilk. I saw this as a graphic. I really didn't get

interested enough in it to determine whether it was a composite or not, the fact that there

was manipulation of tones was pretty obvious. So I was not really anchored in reality and

so didn't have any sense of being deceived or caring in this case.

 

For me, Carl's reference to having a good eye has multi-levels. There is the good eye to

see something immediate, as a Cartier Bresson, there is also the good eye that sees

something in nature as the raw material for a great photo--alla Ansel Adams and his

incredibly manipulated prints and then there is having a good eye to see a composition.

This latter "eye" is something we use when we shoot, crop and, should we wish to

composite, employ in creating a final image that works to promote our vision. All of these

"good eyes" may work together in one image or maybe they are used in various

combinations to complete an image that reflects who we are.

 

I certainly look at photos differently as to genre, subject and such, but what is important

to me in the final analysis is whether the photo moves me in some way. Does it affect me

and give me something new to think about or does it make me feel good or bad or does it

make me go off to another place-physical or mental. So, on that level, I don't care if an

image is manipulated.

 

As to the totally pure, I wonder if we can really say that our film portrays life as it is. For

instance, there are colors that film does not see. There are colors film sees but our eyes

do not and the film manufacturers give us different contrast, saturation and such to meet

our needs, or maybe theirs. So why shouldn't we feel free to push contrast, saturation,

color in a way that

expresses our impression of what is in nature and what we want the image to convey. We

never question this when we are in the

darkroom printing black and white--dodging, burning, bleaching toning etc, and how far

from reality is that!

Certainly there is a difference between a historical event caught happening and one that has

been staged, but that isn't what I was referring to here about this image or the one that this

came up on before. I am just saying that if you like this image thinking that it was real, or

rather not knowing it wasn't or..., why does it matter if it was faked? It is a visual and unless

it is stated to be documentary then what does it matter. I think here it was presented as an

aesthetic work and so should we not evaluate it as same?

 

There are certainly other issues regarding manipulation that I have taken a hard stand

against, but that isn't my problem with this image.

I guess my eyes aren't good enough to follow Richard's mapping, but I do think that just

as a visual puzzle one would have to question the authenticity of the top ridge.

Essentially, for this lighting to work, one would have to assume that each ridge is

progressively further back and yet the ripples on the top ridge are significantly larger than

those in the middle. There is no way that this center ridge could be enough lower than the

back ridge to maintain this type of lighting and present smaller ripples. I have seen odd

phenomena with extreme telephotos(baseball analogy--pitcher looks smaller than batter

from center field camera), but this would not be the norm in photography.

 

But I do wonder why we would find an image less because it is manipulated versus

knowing it is real? Is that the aesthetic emotion versus the other emotion?!? It is like an

earlier POW where there was a scene that could have been set up or it could have been

shot as it was and everyone seemed to have a different set of values as to what a good

photograph was based on how it was made. Are we witnessing that here also? Bottom

line, is the photo pleasing or not. Certainly the photographic quality doesn't diminish

because it is natural or isn't, it is the same photograph whether we know this or not. The

only thing that changes is our mind.