Amazing photo, with a catch - DPChallenge Forums

10/26/2007 10:33:06 PM · #1

I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this. It is NOT my work.

First I saw this photo and was completely blown away.

Then they linked to here and the photo lost all of its power. I still think it's a great photo, and I think the original is a great photo, but I cannot respect it anymore. At least as a photograph.

Thoughts?

Message edited by author 2007-10-26 22:40:07.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/26/2007 10:55:18 PM · #2

Mind if I ask you why you can't respect it any more? I assume it's because it's not real? What if that did come straight from the camera but was staged/faked? Say those birds were props stuck to invisble poles or the poles removed in post. Would you also not respect that version?

Message edited by author 2007-10-26 23:00:21.

vander

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

10/26/2007 10:57:27 PM · #3

I've personally always looked at photographs as art, not as something that needs to be justified as reality always or a capture of the true moment, if that makes sense. If something moves me emotionally whether it's a photograph or a watercolour painting, that is what counts in the end. Something I can look at and really appreciate. It's a special moment for me.

However, I think using a preset brush designed by someone else doesn't score points with me. In my opinion this piece of art would have withstood the criticism had the photographer created these brushes or shot these ravens and then digtially merged them with the well.

I myself do a lot of photoshop work on some of my digitally artistic photos, and some barely any at all. It's whatever emotion I want to portray. Sometimes a photograph that I've shot, just doesn't match the feelings I got when I was actually there, so I will enhance things to create that mood.

But I can appreciate your choice not to respect it anymore. As I said, to me the piece of art is a little lost because he/she didn't design the brush.

It's still a very neat artistic piece though and it does evoke feelings for me, so it has done it's job.

Message edited by author 2007-10-26 22:59:25.

10/26/2007 11:00:38 PM · #4

I can respect it as art, but not as a photograph.

Without the birds, I think it would be a really, really great photograph. Adding the birds, in the positions they're in, make them pretty much the main focus, and adding something that drastic doesn't really work for me.

So as a photograph, I don't think I can respect it, but as something entirely different, it's still pretty awesome.

Edited to add: If the birds were fake, but taken in the photograph, that would be totally fine. I don't know if the results would be the same, but I guess it doesn't really matter. But yeah, I think if the birds were in the photograph, I'd think much more highly of it. Even if, say, columns were removed. That's probably a double standard, but just how my brain works.

Message edited by author 2007-10-26 23:06:27.

Beetle

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/26/2007 11:06:04 PM · #5

Originally posted by movieman:

So as a photograph, I don't think I can respect it, but as something entirely different, it's still pretty awesome.

I agree.

I tend to use two different terms: photograph (for a very close representation of reality) vs picture (something that resembles a photograph, but has other elements to it, no longer accurately reflecting the truth).

Both can be good, both have their place - but I don't like being fooled by someone trying to make me believe his/her picture is actually a photograph.

Shadowi6

Nikon D200

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX-DC HSM

10/26/2007 11:10:02 PM · #6

on a side note those brushes are unreal, so very well done.

I dont have a problem unless its represented as a photo of the event

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

10/26/2007 11:13:05 PM · #7

Originally posted by Shadowi6:

I dont have a problem unless its represented as a photo of the event

Which is sort of was. It was a community for posting photos of abandoned buildings. Later, in the comments it was revealed the birds were added.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

10/26/2007 11:20:44 PM · #8

It's ok to not like something because of how it was made. I just think it's counterproductive to like something on first glance and then not like it after you learn something about it. If you liked this image initally, that should tell you something.

I wonder how artists in other mediums such as oil and acrylic painting deal with this issue. I wonder if there is some sort of faction that doesn't like paintings that were created with certain types of brushes or canvases. I know lots of photographers are locked into their definition of reality and can't look beyond 'minimal editing,' but I'm sure this type of social structure probably exists in other mediums too...

FocusPoint

XIAOMI Redmi Note 8 Pro

10/26/2007 11:21:20 PM · #9

Originally posted by yanko:

Now you said that, I do prefer staged than digitally put together. Why? because staged is one piece, closer to be real than digital stuff. If we know how to do digital editing too much, why bother take good pictures the way we know it at the first place anyway. We put everything together like legos, and enjoy!

Photography, in my mind, is not all that digital stuff, although it helps. Using it as "help" rather than "the whole thing" I prefer.

If everything was staged, comes out from the machine, what counts the most for me.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

10/26/2007 11:26:01 PM · #10

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Oh, I do like it! I still like it very much.

It's just hard for me to respect it as a photograph, instead of something else. I don't really know what that something else would be, but a different medium all together. I guess just digital art, even if the bulk of it is a photograph.

superdave

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

10/27/2007 12:21:32 AM · #11

I don't really like it and the sky bothers me for some reason. Why would you still like it after you see the photo is not real. Kind of like you have been tricked.I have more respect for someone that can take a good photograph in camera rather then somebody who takes an average photo and makes it outstanding with photoshop.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/27/2007 12:30:37 AM · #12

How do you feel about this? The birds were added, freehand, in post...

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

10/27/2007 01:02:11 AM · #13

Originally posted by superdave:

How can you determine if you like it or not when you can't determine if it was made in camera or with photoshop? Do you need that information before you can decide if you like an image or not?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/27/2007 01:23:17 AM · #14

Originally posted by movieman:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's ok to not like something because of how it was made. I just think it's counterproductive to like something on first glance and then not like it after you learn something about it. If you liked this image initally, that should tell you something.

Oh, I do like it! I still like it very much.

It's just hard for me to respect it as a photograph, instead of something else. I don't really know what that something else would be, but a different medium all together. I guess just digital art, even if the bulk of it is a photograph.

I'm going to assume that you like movies, based on your username.

Would you also say that movies with extensive CG effects are something other than a movie?

What about conventional special effects, do they make a movie into something else?

Does a movie have to be shot as a dry documentary with no effect to be a real "movie"?

I don't get it.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

10/27/2007 01:45:21 AM · #15

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Would you also say that movies with extensive CG effects are something other than a movie?

Does a movie have to be shot as a dry documentary with no effect to be a real "movie"?

If it were a documentary, then no, I wouldn't like it if it used CG to "enhance" reality. Any more than I like photojournalism shots to include elements that weren't really there.

I don't understand why people get so upset at those (including, sometimes, me), who like a photograph that claims to be real to actually be real.

The OP has stated repeatedly that he still likes it as a piece of art. Me too, actually.

briantammy

Olympus PEN E-P3

Konica Minolta MF 85mm f/1.7

10/27/2007 02:08:41 AM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

How do you feel about this? The birds were added, freehand, in post...

R.

In the context of this post, knowing what it is, i like it. (the reflections of the birds are missing though). If i were led to assume that it was real, i would say it was amazing. If i found out later that is was not real, but allowed to believe it was I would loose respect although still think it was a beautiful image.

fotomann_forever

10/27/2007 02:21:14 AM · #17

In my mind there are two types of photography. There is journalism and there is everything else. If I saw this photo on the front page of a respected newspaper with the headline "Birds Attack..." that newspaper would lose all of my respect. Everything else is art and open to the artists' interpretation and means.

The Photoshop job is pretty damn convincing. In my mind, being convincing is more important than the means with art. I don't want the illusion broken by a jagged edge or a misplaced shadow. The key (as every good magician will tell you) is to keep the "trick" a secret.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/27/2007 04:58:35 AM · #18

Well, the Deviant Art one won't open for me.

As a fan of cool derelict old buildings, I'd just as soon the birds weren't there. They don't really add anything for me. I like that castle keep or whatever the heck it is.

10/27/2007 05:03:30 AM · #19

Originally posted by levyj413:

I don't understand why people get so upset at those (including, sometimes, me), who like a photograph that claims to be real to actually be real.

The OP has stated repeatedly that he still likes it as a piece of art. Me too, actually.

I don't think anybody who has responded is upset. Although I do have my suspicions about which camp is really upset. Passive aggression anybody? If you notice nobody has ever started a thread claiming some photo composite as being an honest to god photograph. Why is that? Could it be that those who start threads like this are the ones who are uncomfortable with photo composites and their place in the photography world and they are somewhat upset about it? Well at least upset enough to start yet another thread about it even though one gets started about every other week. Speaking of which where is the dead horse icon!!!! :P

Message edited by author 2007-10-27 05:53:22.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

10/27/2007 05:06:17 AM · #20

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I'm Richard Toro and I approve of this message. :P

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/27/2007 09:05:47 AM · #21

Originally posted by levyj413:

I agree also Jeffrey (big surprise there - eh?) :-D

Originally posted by yanko:

If you notice nobody has ever started a thread claiming some photo composite as being an honest to god photograph. Why is that?

Because it wouldn't be the truth?

Originally posted by yanko:

Could it be that those who start threads like this are the ones who are uncomfortable with photo composites and their place in the photography world and they are somewhat upset about it?

And there's a problem with that? Some people like photo collages, some don't - and I think both sides generally agree that a collage isn't a "photograph" anymore, but rather a piece of digital art (I know, I know..."they" were making collages before digital - go ahead.).

Many people don't like being tricked, as was the reason I believe that the OP started this thread.

As for the number of threads regarding this subject, it's been far and few between IMO. Most of the time this subject comes up is when there's an Expert Editing challenge in the works.

JamesA

Nikon D800

10/27/2007 09:15:12 AM · #22

yay that brush is COOOOOOL

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

10/27/2007 11:50:14 AM · #23

Originally posted by yanko:

If you notice nobody has ever started a thread claiming some photo composite as being an honest to god photograph. Why is that?

Well, what's the fun in that? ;)

At any rate, maybe I was wrong about the level of emotion. Probably I was reacting to some of overheated comments in other threads; you're right that in this one, the posts are all calm explorations of the issue.

For me, I don't get particularly wrapped up in the terminology. Photography does encompass a wide spectrum of "truth" to complete fabrication (cue the side argument about the camera always lying no matter what).

I like images because I like 'em, regardless of where they land on that spectrum. BUT. I'm even more impressed when people catch something difficult to catch in real-time.

JamesA

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

10/27/2007 12:10:41 PM · #24

look look look