nick_s

This is a beautiful photograph, and I particularly like the exposure and contrast. The composition is also well executed. My only complaint would be the sailboat... I find it competes with the seal for my attention. Judging from your title, I think the intent was to portray the seal as a "mariner" about to embark on a voyage with his "ship". The photo works reasonably well in this regard, but I still think it would be stronger with either the seal (preferably the seal) or the boat (but not both). However, this is a minor suggestion, and please don't let it detract from your accomplishment.

Wow, this is great. I especially love the composition and high contrast (it looks like a red filter was used... am I right?). The effect of the layers of sedimentary rock is much like a slow shutter speed photo of traffic headlights - in other words, I almost get a sense of motion in an otherwise static photo. Well done!

While there are some compositional problems with this photo, I admire the effort. In fact, I have been planning to do a shot very similar to this with one of my sons. Carlos, can you explain your technique and set-up for this photo and any difficulties you might have encountered? I would really appreciate any advice you may be able to offer. Thanks in advancce.

Great depth of field, great composition, and great subject (dare I say original?) with a great title.

Has a very pleasing, mystical/fantasy like quality to it.

Hi J. Was checking out the recent "cloud" discussion and followed the link you left to your photo here. Very nice. Couple of quick questions. Did you "see" the angel when you took the photo, and have you tried enlarging the angel? If so, how did it look? Just curious.

Maurice said:

 

"I can think of at least three concrete/practical solutions to recreate this image exactly as it is shown here. One possibility could have the model walk in front of a moving image, along with the necessary lighting). But these solutions are costly and i'm not even sure that i'd want to go to such lenght in pursuit of purity... it would be just as contrived, but then, would it be labeled fake, even if the model is walking in front of a "fake" background ???"

 

Very interesting point Maurice. Yesterday, after posting my second comment, I thought more about the distinction between a photograph and digital art. The conclusion I came to before reading your post above was that a photograph is an accurate representation of what a human eye would see through the viewfinder - *color and length of exposure notwithstanding*. I specifically exclude colour because to say otherwise would be to suggest that *ALL* black and white images are not photographs. Additionally, since most films produce varying interpretations of the colors they were exposed to (velvia vs. kodachrome for instance), again you would be led to conclude that color manipulation is acceptable in a "pure" photograph. BTW, I include with color any localized intensifying or muting of the colors through techniques such as dodging and burning.

 

I exclude length of exposure since a long exposure does in fact represent what a human eye would see if a human eye could amalgamate all the visual information it receives over a period of time longer than the blink of an eye.

 

Note that I *DO NOT* distinguish between the medium used to capture this information whether it be digital or film. I agree with those who suggest that film will go the way of the dinosaur (or at least the vinyl LP) - it seems inevitable to me. Digital cameras will improve, and I would bet that at some point they will have a dial or a menu from which you can choose the digital version of your favourite film (i.e. Tri-X or Velvia or Kodak Gold or whatever).

 

To me, Digital Art begins the moment you begin manipulating, for lack of a better term, the "substance" of what was seen through the viewfinder. Again, this would include deleting the visual eyesores such as that "ugly power line" or adding effects that were not captured in the first place - *EVEN IF* it might be possible to create a similar effect in the real world such as Maurice's suggestion that he could have used a moving background to create the same effect. The point is he didn't, and for me, this moves the picture into the realm of digital art.

 

To further confuse the issue, I imagine another category which I will term "film art" could be identified such as when Luis suggested that the same blur effect could be created by moving the paper back and forth during development. Again, this would be an alteration of what was seen through the viewfinder, and in my mind, not a pure photograph.

 

This post is not concerned with whether the image is "fake" or not, since it could be argued that a huge proportion of photographs taken might be fake (i.e. is it "fake" when a person "poses" for the camera?). I am simply trying to establish for myself where the boundaries are between a photograph and other types of art.

 

Finally, for those who persist in labelling this type of discussion as an attack on Maurice or any other artists who use photoshop or other techniques to generate the results they desire - get over it. These artists are talented and worthy of respect. Someday I may wish to emulate them. But in my mind, their final product cannot be defined as a "photograph".

First an addendum to my post above, and then a quick reply to luis.

 

Addendum: I really do like this "image". I like the subtle use of color and I like the message/mood Maurice was trying to convey. If I were to offer any constructive criticism, I think the bit I can offer is that which has already been stated - the background blur mixing with the focused image of the model is a little distracting since I keep trying to look for more detail in the model (especially around the face).

 

Luis: To be honest, I didn't know this although it certainly makes sense. To date, I have not developed any of my own photos since I'm still fairly new to photography (although I'm beginning a darkroom class this Thursday). My earlier post was intended to convey what my "gut" is telling me about what is and isn't a photograph. Obviously, there are a lot of arguments that can be made both ways (in fact, I'll bet for every single argument for or against the digital manipulation of a picture, a valid counterargument can easily be made), and I'm not saying that I'm right, but merely what my opinion is. I think what it may come down to is "common sense" in that the individual arguments that are made for or against digital manipulation should at some point be divorced from the totality of the message that is trying to be conveyed. For example, if one were inclined to take this debate to absurd extremes, one might argue that isolating a pixel(s) from a photograph and then painting a picture with that color(s) may also constitute a photograph. I doubt anyone would agree with that statement, but nonetheless it could be argued. So again, it comes down to where/what the line separating photography from digital art is. I think such a line exists, and I know where my "gut" tells me that line might be located. *TO ME*, this image crosses that line (yet because I admire the effect and the intent, this does not mean that I wouldn't try to create similar types of images myself at somepoint in the future).

 

A couple of observations. First, I like the overall effect of this "image". Is it "photography"? I don't think so... although it is certainly photograph"ic". My point being that a light tight box provided the genesis of the art we now see. I applaud Maurice for his creativity - and the title is indeed thought provoking.

 

Second, I (and others) wonder where the line should be drawn between photography and digital art. I know this topic has been discussed to death in various forums, but since the elves seem intent on provoking and stimulating discussion on the topic (given the high profile of the POW) I'll quickly add my two cents. IMHO, if an image is to be evaluated as a "photograph" then digital manipulation (i.e. photoshopping) should be limited to standard darkroom techniques such as dodging, burning, cropping, and slight color rebalancing. Where the image itself has been changed (including motion blur (as we have here) and/or the elimination of unwanted details such as power lines, ugly signs in the background etc.), then again IMO we have strayed from the photographic ideal. This is not to say that the resultant image is to be looked down upon, but rather it should be evaluated and appreciated within an altered context.

 

For me, the bottom line would be that such digitally altered images *ARE* appropriate for upload, discussion, and critique here at the photo.net site since, once again, the genesis of the image was the capture of a "real world" subject through the use of a light tight box. *HOWEVER* the artist should clearly indicate that the image has been altered (as Maurice has done here). *THEREFORE*, while I think it appropriate that these images receive critique at this site, I do not think that it is appropriate that they receive consideration for "Photograph" Of the Week.

Never visited NY before. Always wanted to see that famous skyline.. and photograph it. Absolutely sickened that I won't get that chance.

 

As a photo, I think it's so so. Slightly uneven horizon, and nothing extraordinary about the composition. As a personal archival record, priceless.

I'm almost positive the photographer didn't intend the frowny face, but now that I see it, I like it for that reason also. With the moon and the dandelion forming the off kilter "eyes", it almost looks like a frowny face that would be created by Jim Henson (i.e. some sort of Sesame Street type Muppet with googly eyes). You can either take this photo seriously - as per my first comment - or not nearly as seriously - as with this interpretation!!!

Pretty much in agreement with Brian. HOWEVER, the pose and story might work if you titled the photo "Waiting for a Taxi."

I also like the composition. It really accentuates the long legs and neck of these strange birds. I'm not sure if it's the resolution of the upload, or if its my monitor, but I wish I could see more of that "bow wave" - I can see how that would add some 3D type depth as well as some dynamicism to the photo.

After posting my comment above, I looked at the photo even more closely, and I noticed what I believe to be a couple of seed pods floating away from the dandelion. What might be neat (or downright cheesy - I'm not sure which) would be to see a few more of these pods floating *towards* the moon kind of like a "lunar mission". Might require an assistant to "blow" though. Just an idea.

If it's real, very cool. However, while I'm no expert, I'll add a third "composite" vote.

Now this captures my imagination! From a purely aesthetic perspective I think it's slightly above average, but from an originality perspective I love it (probably helps that I'm a bit of an astronomy enthusiast also). To date I have not felt comfortable rating photographs until I actually come to grips with what is and isn't "original" and I'm still not there quite yet (at least with respect to assigning a numeric rating), so my written explanation at this point will have to suffice.

 

Trying to "read" a bit into this photo, I like how life here on earth is juxtaposed against the barren moon and space. I also like the simplicity of the composition. My one complaint would be the relative positioning of the dandelion, the grass, and the moon. Somehow it does not seem to be in proper balance to my eye. If it were me, I would probably revisit the opportunity and play with the composition somewhat. Well done nonetheless.

Ever since I discovered photo.net, I have been a fan of Dan's photos... and I like this one too. Even though I am a sports enthusiast, I typically find sports and athletics photos boring and not overly pleasing from an aesthetic perspective(probably because of the garish, multi-hued jerseys and uniforms worn by most of the participants). However, every now and then an image captures my imagination or otherwise causes me to "look" for more than a split-second. This is such a photo. ABC's Wide World of Sports used to have an opening montage featuring a ski jumper careening off the edge of the jump while nearly decaptitating a couple of officials along the way. The narrator (Jim McKay I believe) described it as "the agony of defeat." It may be cliched, but here is a still that would definitely benefit from that title. Ouch!

Thanks for the reply Justin. Just goes to show that you can't learn without asking. While I havn't taken lightning photos yet, I intend to. Your explanation might have saved me from a day of wasted shots. Thanks.

For the most part, I like the subject... but I have to admit, I find the use of the red filter garish.

Hi Justin. As others have mentioned, this is a remarkable shot, and I hope to be in a position someday to capture nature at her best (as you have here). However, I have a question. Why would you go with f1.8? I understand that the available lighting caused overexposure at 2s on f22 without a filter, and with your filter, I'm guessing that f22 would have led to an unbelievably long shutter speed. However, would it not have been possible to stop down to around f8 or so with the filter? I'm guessing that this would give a shutter speed somewhere in the mid teens (I'm still fairly new to photography and don't have the aperatures and their corresponding changes to shutter speed memorized yet... still relying upon the electronics of my F80!!!). In any event, wouldn't this longer exposure have made it easier to capture the lightning while also rendering the picture in better overall focus? I'm not trying to be critical, but just trying to understand the logic since I'm definitely in "learning mode" (and probably will be for several more years if not the rest of my life). I'm not really familiar with ND filters either, so maybe there is something I'm missing.

I really like your perspective on this one. Kind of disorienting, but that's what makes it interesting.

I will admit that I am far from the most experienced photographer commenting upon this - and other - photos, but I would have to disagree strongly with those people suggesting that the composition of this photo could be improved. It seems that the common objection in the few complaints that I have read with respect to this photo is that the central pink petals are too close to the bottom of the frame.

 

Well, while I didn't say so in my earlier comment, I remember thinking at the time that in addition to the delicacy of the lighting and colors, I also thought that the composition was spot-on. I like the fact that we are seeing an unevenly weighted representation of about half the petals. I like the fact that the creamy off white colors radiate away from the lower left side of the frame. I like the fact that with this slight lower left "weighting" , Bill adheres to the "not-in-the-centre" rule without, IMHO, being overly self-conscious in the attempt. Again, IMO only, the composition is wonderfully subtle and should be commended.

When I saw the thumbnail for the POW, I though "what the heck (actually, it wasn't "heck", but you get the idea"). My initial response was based upon what seemed to be a lack of punch in the colors of the flower and the fact that *until now* I have not really appreciated the flower macro. Like Pawel said, I was of the belief that flower macros lacked emotion and are somewhat cliched.

 

BUT, when I opened up the larger image, what can I say but WOW! What I originally perceived as a "lack of punch" was in fact some of the most wonderously muted and delicate colors I have yet seen in a photograph! The delicacy of the petals is enhanced by the delicacy of the lighting, and I do believe I had an emotional reaction to it. Truly outstanding - and congratulations (especially on this being your second POW).

 

If I may, I would also like to inquire whether any special lighting techniques were used.

Does the fact that Amy reveals herself not only through her photos, but also *in* her photos have anything to do with the generally positive feedback she seems to be receiving for her work?

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE, I very much like her work also, and have commented upon this a couple of times here at photo.net, but also in an email to her. But I also wonder if she, or any other photographer, who pursues the medium of self-portraiture as extensively as she does might not be influencing the responses of critics here and elsewhere. The point I am trying to make has nothing to do with the fact that Amy is an attractive (and often nude) female in her uploaded images, but rather with the fact that she is a much more identifiable photographer than some other excellent photographers at this site (i.e. who knows what Tony Dummett or Daniel Bayer looks like?). In other words, she is much more of a *person* than an *abstraction*, and I think people in general are less likely to criticize (read "hurt the feelings") of people they feel they know.

 

Again Amy, I like this and many other of your wonderful photographs, and I think I have been reasonably objective in my praise. But I just thought I would throw out this question for debate (or outright dismissal if people think I'm off my rocker!).

Lemmings... or perhaps cult members attending some ritual. Whatever, it definitely provokes thought. Aesthetically, I would be inclined to crop much of the dead space to the left of the waterfall and line of lemmings.