- This topic is empty.
Skyline
-
Finally getting back to posting a few pics.
Thought this fitted in this category best.
It won an IPF Bronze Medal (intermediate) in the Print & Projected Image finals recently.
I’d have serious reservations classifying this as a photograph… and as a result can’t find much to say about it.
Likewise – I saw this at the SACC event and wondered how it got the results it did – as a picture it has merits but as a photograph…well, it isn’t. I know this is a C&C section but I do that generally to photographs. Obviously given the fact that 3 judges from Celbridge liked it there must either be some kind of processing or agreeable exception to imaging nowadays beyond what the camera can capture.
No offence, I wish you well, just this presentation I find difficult to comprehend.
Alan
Not something I’d consider calling a photograph personally. I really like it as a piece of graphic art though.
It is a nice image, I like it.
However I don’t know where photography stops and graphic art starts, I’m no purist, but I have to agree with the others, even if the IPF is surely a better judge of the topic than me.Could you explain a bit more about the photography side of it? as it is a bit of a surprise post, it seems to be basically graphic art, although in photography people do do a lot of cloning, colour changing, swapping skies, smoothing etc
Martin
Calling it a photograph is pure nonsense
If you want critique then the church looks like it needs a tiny CCW rotation to me, can’t think of anything else to say about it
Thanks for the responses guys.
I was just as surpised it did well, and I too wonder where photography ends and graphic art begins.
While its extremely obvious it has been photoshopped, is it so different from using hdr effects, and the wide range of other effects available and used regularly by photographers in PS?
I didn’t make it to the judging, so don’t know what the views there were.
MartinOC wrote:
… I have to agree with the others, even if the IPF is surely a better judge of the topic than me.
No need to be sarcastic, Martin…
As a photograph it does nothing for me, but as a poster to promote an event etc, it could work very well.
jb7 wrote:
No need to be sarcastic, Martin…
moi? :)
wexsnap wrote:
While its extremely obvious it has been photoshopped, is it so different from using hdr effects, and the wide range of other effects available and used regularly by photographers in PS?
.
People might have strong opinions about whether something is photography or not, but I would guess they would be hard pressed to define the boundaries precisely.
It is much easier with analogue, as the techniques, mostly use light (light in interaction with chemicals etc.) corresponding to the semantic root of the word photography.
But with digital, everything after collecting the light on the sensor is about computer processing, and the printing doesn’t use light. Whether implicitly done by the camera or image format specification, or explicitly by the photographer, there are processing choices being made.
And with digital, a person chucks out many standard effects (including quite basic processing/printing choices) used in analogue photography by not post-processing.So there is a very good case that a certain amount of processing is better than none.
Realism doesn’t necessarily have to be the main factor in processing.
And much accepted analogue stuff like IR, Low FI, Pictorialism can be about as realistic as HDR or your interpretation here.So where to draw the line …. I don’t know myself, … one could defer to learned bodies.
While its extremely obvious it has been photoshopped, is it so different from using hdr effects, and the wide range of other effects available and used regularly by photographers in PS?
Of course it is… are you telling to tell us that the birds, the hot air baloon and the Yellow Submarine styled sunbeams were all part of the original photograph?
You could actually create this image without taking a single photograph.
Hi
as someone only new to digital photography and who hadn’t known the meaning of PP until a few months ago, I would love if wexsnap would post the ‘original’ photograph, out of the camera, because I am lost!
It would seem that, not only do you have to have the photographer’s eye to see the potential photogenic nature of a scene, you also have to see the potential of PP in the scene, and have the artistic nature, the computer know-how and a lot of software to complete the PP.
PP seems to be the art of taking any digital image, taken by yourself or anyone else, and using software to enhance the image or maybe even create something completely different, like this skyline – so you don’t really have to be a photographer at all to be fantastic at PP.
Not that I am complaining, I have to admire artistic ability – but its a long way from throwing the completed roll of film into your favourite developers and waiting anxiously to see if you got all of the settings right at the time of taking of the photo.
I would just love to understand if the original image was taken as a standard photgenic skyline, or was it taken with the artistic end result already in mind.
Walter
As always thanks for the input guys.
I will post the original if I can locate it (drives at another location).BaiterOne
The original was taken with the intention of creating a silhouette and birds, rays etc, added to enhance the photograph, and that is what transpired – whether or not it is still a photograph now seems to be the debate.In general terms though, most digital photographers I know use some type of post-processing, whether its just adjustments to tones, levels, colours etc, or something more extreme like changing skies, adding in people/objects, hdr, infra-red etc. In this case I added something in, many others take something out.
Anyway guys its good to talk……or post!
Thanks for the answer, wexsnap,
I look forward to seeing it.
I think its great that someone can see a concept, start at a beginning and, by carrying out a process already envisaged by them, deliver the goods at the other end. Magic! And in this case, the Bronze Medal is a fine reward for the effort involved and the proof that others really appreciate the outcome of that effort.
I still have difficulties with basic camera settings, never mind concepts…..
Walter
Either way, this is a nice image. I like it. for some reason everytime I look at the birds i see a row of spitfires (as in planes) dunno why that is but it makes the image appealing to me, almost has a world war II feel to it…again I dont know why. I can see why it got the award but I also see why the purist wouldnt interpet it as a photograph.
Nice work!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
