david_b._kilper

Rashed, many people don't use software to manipulate their photos. Not all of the photos I posted in my portfolio are post processed.

Some photographers don't need to... Anyway, the lying and BS on this site has really turned me off. I'm moving on. Take care John,

Gordon, et all. Best wishes.

Going through the entire folder, I noticed that the sky was photoshopped into quite many of the photos. (evidenced by the shadows, reflections, and sun not lining up, as well as two suns in some photos.) I feel like you're trying to use photoshop to make photography rather than using the camera. Many people have said that they don't think the manipulations really have any bearing on the photos, but I feel when it's a habitual thing while letting people believe the photo hasn't been touched in that manner is pretty dishonest. One interesting thing though, the photos that I was drawn to are also the ones that have been manipulated drastically, then I blow them up on the other monitor and I'm just disappointed. I'm not saying manipulating them is wrong, it isn't, and I've done the same on a few occasions, but tell people that it's fake.

Side note: Why do we constantly have to question if a photo was manipulated in this manner on photo.net?

I'm guessing the sky was photoshopped in?  The sun is in the distance in the sky, yet it is also behind you in order to create the shadow?

Ha ha ha ha. Must be all the western Washington smog playing tricks on you Jim. ;-)

Great example of "photoshopography." I have a feeling the original raw image is better than this one. I pretty much agree with everything Brett said about the problems with the image.

Normally, lighting like this is considered unflattering, but being young and having flawless skin really negates that. I also find that her expression and the "emotion" of the light really go hand in hand. I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone. I'm on the fence with this. Normally I either like or dislike a photo, or art, etc..., but this sort of shot puts me in a realm that I don't usually fall into emotionally when looking at art and photography (I know, they go hand in hand, ;-) I'm usually the first to criticize when people over-saturate their photos, so I might be a little biased to the treatment of this shot. I have more respect for someone who knows how NOT to just make it black and white or so saturated that the colors bleed into each other, and this photo is a great example of how beautiful it can be when color is reduced but not removed (how beautiful I think it can be.) I would like to see a little bit more pink in her lips and a bit more blue in her eyes though. Good shot. I'm happy the druids picked this one for POW.

I feel like this photo would be more compelling if it were part of a set that explored some element of light or space or symmetry.

I don't much care for the cropped and contrasted version. The symmetry of the pipes if fighting the format and the specialness of the light on the pipes is lost. The contrast moves the image from what I see as potential art to just kitsch.

John, could you clarify your context on your last comment about when you use Auto or Manual? I'm asking this because I seldom use auto, but when I find a need to do so, I'm almost always on assignment. When shooting a runway fashion show I get one chance to get any one image and auto is handy so as to make the most of every shot with the least risk of making a mistake. Though admittedly, many shows have test models that walk out and pose first so that photographers can set their program modes accordingly. When I photograph on my own time, I do everything manually. I tend to feel more satisfied with my art when I know that I made the decisions and controlled as many variables as the camera allows. I tend to get frustrated with digital cameras because even in full manual, there is still some part of the camera making decisions that I don't care for. When shooting with my Nikon F, I could care less that it has no auto-features, and with my Nikon F5, other than auto focus, I never use any auto-features.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters to use either or because it is the photographers brain that decides if it's appropriate. The camera is only as smart as the people who made it, and is only as capable as the person using it. I guess if we are talking about typical $300 USD point-and-shoot cameras from Best Buy we can say 70-80% of photographs are done in full auto. (Actually, when I think about all the narcissistic former girlfriends I've had, I think it might actually be 99% of the photographs taken, but then who doesn't take ten million photographs of their own kissie-faces in one five minute sitting? Ha ha.)

I have a tendency to shoot a lot randomly at first. I then refine my vision. Then inspiration strikes me and I then become very particular in

the way I shoot "it.". It's usually a vey quick process. I very seldom am thinking about post processing. For me, my quickly developed

vision decides how I use the camera and very seldomly does the auto feature do what I want. Photoshop refines my vision, whereas as

when I'm in the darkroom, I'm CRAFTING my vision. I think the photographer is one hundred percent responsible for the quality of a photo.

Otherwise, I suppose dolphins and chimpanzees would steal my job.

Actually, that reply was for you Richard. For some reason, on the iPhone, a bunch of the posts are missing and some of the names for each post are shifted up or down. Hmmm, scrolling up, I just noticed about 20 or so comments were deleted. Being on my desktop now I'm assuming I'm seeing this correctly.

Thank you for your reply. For the shadow, it is almost perpindicular to the first older woman. My observation was that at

some point the young woman would have been nearly in front of the group. I'm sure someone adjusted their path to avoid

the other so someone is aware of the other. This is probably a pointless point to discuss though.

The photographer says they laughed at the bikinied woman. Whether he is correct or not is irrelevent because I choose to

believe they did. This is a trveler's shot and carries some leeway, not an editorial shot by Robert Capa. We get to make

the story.

My apologies Richard. I had a response for you to but that one was for

Patrick. I got distracted halfway through.

Richard, reread your first paragraph and then go back and reread mine. You contradicted yourself and reaffirmed my comment about

acknowledging the others' existence to navigate. That, as well, is not an urban environment, and since there aren't hundreds of people

right there, I'm sure they realize the other exists. They are merely feet apart. Look at where the bikinied girl's shadow is falling. Do you

see what I see?

If it were any other picture it would get just as much attention. If it were so profound it would have had a lengthy conversation about it well before it made POW.

It's really silly to think that the "native women" and the bikini-clad woman aren't aware of each other. Five seconds prior, ten seconds prior, maybe even one minute prior, they all at the very least saw each other. They would have to, at the very least, acknowledge each others' existence if they have any intention of successfully navigating from point a to point b. It's clear that at some point they were walking head on. And while we're on the topic of cultural differences, it might help not to make so many assumptions. Why are we assuming the bikini-wearing woman wasn't originally of the same religion/faith as the others and just converted or gave it up all together? Why are we assuming she is a visitor and doesn't just live 20 miles down the road? Just because she's white, tattooed, and in a bikini doesn't mean she's from another country. Otherwise, half of the Americans I see everyday must not have been born in the US. That would be like saying all the African-Americans living in the US, who have extensive family trees in the US, aren't actually Americans. THAT'S SILLY! Look past race, tattoos, and clothing.

My apologies to everyone. I was mistaken. I didn't realize that traditionally dressed Turkish women and scantly clad non-Turkish women can only coexist at the travertine pools, and nowhere else in the world. Again, I'm terribly sorry.

I don't see any pools in the picture. So these rocks could be anywhere unless the photographer says so, which he has neither confirmed, nor denied, unless I missed it. Also, I never said it isn't about the location. I said it's not the focus or the most important part of the photo. It's not a world heritage site because of the travertine pools either. That was a title given due to its historical value. I could understand your point of view if the photo were more like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Pamukkale_Hierapolis_Travertine_pools.JPG but as it is, it's about the people.

To clarify one thing, I don't think it's ordinary. I never said it was ordinary. I was referring to the saturation of any topic in photography and expressed both ends of the spectrum: ordinary, and extraordinary to explain my point.

I understand what you are saying Patrick, I just feel that in this photo, it isn't as important as you think. The photo isn't of the environment at all. The composition makes that very clear. You make it sound like, if the people were removed from the photo, there would be no difference. It's historical because of some kind of human footprint on it, and because of some kind of human documentation. Remove humanity, and it's just Earth. Not even earth, just a rock with some plants and some water. All I see is travertine. Remove the traditionally dressed people and no one would even know the difference. It looks exactly like some rock structures of the salt lakes here in the US, just like parts of the edges of the dead sea, the rock slide at a climb called "flaying the gumby" in the New Valley Gorge, or like the rocks outside Portnashangan, Ireland. If the rocks were so important to the photographer, then I feel the photographer would have photographed it and ignored the people, or at least emphasized the pools or expanded the angle. I realize the geological/historical importance of the feature, but all it does is just provide a context. If that context is changed does it change the cultural significance? I don't know, but I'm not inclined to think it will. POW is about photography and technique, and not so much the historical significance of the subject/object. By no means am I jaded. I specifically sought out that location for a vacation and I appreciate it for what it is and represents, but like I wrote above, it's about photography, not history.

I overlooked the obvious argument that by your reasoning, a very poorly cell phone pic of the local would be merit enough to make it POW. If you want to discuss rarity, how about the four people in that shot? Never again will that exact moment ever happen again in the same way with the same people at the same time of day, but those rocks will still be there tomorrow--well, unless someone does something really stupid and turns them into travertine tiles for kitchens and baths.

You are right about this location not being on photo.net often, but I personally have taken thousands. I have friends that have taken thousands. There are tens of thousands online, so at what point does it's rarity become ordinary and common place in photography? Even on a space station, there is a point where it would become ordinary and not extraordinary. Forgive me for not seeing it as a scenic shot. The composition and exposure indicate, at least for me, that the subjects and event are what were important in that one photo, not the location. If the location is so important, then perhaps photographing it in such a way so as to make the location obvious would be more appropriate. I've done a lot of rock climbing and bouldering and I can recall many locations that looked very similar to that photo.

I don't see it as a portrait. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. It looks almost like on-assignment editorial work, but I would rather refer to it as a street shot. Don't get me wrong, I really love the photo, but I feel like what you're saying isn't jiving with the photo.

I'm confused. So you're saying that this photo should get POW honors (which isn't even an honor) just because of it's location? I realize you're upset that people aren't as amazed about the location as you, but do you think that something that has been photographed so much should get honors just on the basis of its existence? Look at the people. Does it really matter where they are? Sure it sets the context, but what if this happened in a cave, or on a beach, or on a space station?

I see plenty of detail in the brightest parts of the photo, and more than sufficient detail in the darkest parts of the photo, so the exposure is fine. This shot isn't supposed to be beautiful art with sculpted-by-light naked bodies and some profound lethargic uninspired facial expression from some boring over the top trashy model. The composition IN MY OPINION, is exactly what I would expect from a photo in this context, and where it should be. The only way this particular photo could really be better is if it were a fraction of a second later to capture more "motion" in the strides of the two women on the far ends.

I don't see the lighting as flat as people claim. Maybe I'm the only one that sees the reflected light on all the figures. That reflected light I think is what keeps the darks from getting too dark. The problem with the critiques that this image is getting, or rather criticisms, is that some people don't realize that if you, as the photographer did what they are suggesting, you would NOT have gotten THIS image. Someone said the girl in the bikini has no shadow on her and someone else said that she was added by photoshop..... REALLY? You must be using iPhones to view the picture or something.

This is the first photo that I've liked as POW in a very long time.

What a photo! The elves chose a photo that offers so much to talk about both technically and culturally. I really can't wait to get to my

laptop so I can write a long-winded boring response. Photos like this really get me excited about photography and culture!

Am I the only one having a hard time finding in this thread where anyone told other people what to appreciate? I reread everything and all I saw were clearly denoted opinions.